‘O-Shot’ incontinence fix: Inquirer sets out lack of scientific support for procedure
Rating
The O-Shot: Incontinence fix or empty promise?
Our Review Summary
This story about the use of an unproven treatment–called “O-shot”–to stop urinary leakage in women does a lot of things well. Specifically, it:
- describes a clearly newsworthy (if frustrating) consumer demand for the procedure,
- sets out the lack of scientific support or rationale for its effects,
- notes the clear conflicts of interest inherent in the claims of benefit,
- points out the uninsurable costs of the procedure, and
- makes clear that the claims of benefit are based solely on anecdote and patient testimonial.
Two ways the story could have been stronger? If it had included a patient anecdote that wasn’t quite so positive, and if it had better laid out the risks and potential harms of the procedure.
Why This Matters
As the story makes clear, urinary “stress” incontinence is a significant clinical problem for millions of women, interfering with active lifestyles and quality of life. Current surgical, medical and lifestyle treatments work but not always reliably, and in some cases carry risks and unwanted side effects. It’s not unusual, therefore, that unproven therapies may appeal to many.
Criteria
Satisfactory
The story does a good job of not only giving the price of the O-shots, but leaving the reader with the clear understanding that they may be spending money on a therapy for which there is no scientific evidence of benefit. The story could have been strengthened by noting the costs of alternatives to the O-shot.
Satisfactory
The story explicitly notes more than once that there are no clinical trials or peer reviewed publications to support the claims–and therefore no quantifiable data.
In the absence of medical evidence, the story uses a doctor’s claims and a patient’s experience to discuss what the benefits might be. The doctor’s enthusiastic claims are balanced well by an independent expert who discusses the potential drawbacks.
To help better balance the piece, we do wish the story also had presented a range of patient opinions, instead of only a favorable one.
Not Satisfactory
Drawing blood and injecting blood components into the vagina and clitoris are not without potential risk of pain, infection or other unknown complications. This should have been made clear.
Satisfactory
The story does a good job of establishing the quality of evidence for the treatment (that is, none).
“There’s no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that any of this works.”
Satisfactory
No mongering here.
Satisfactory
The story includes important backstopping from an independent source. We did not detect any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed.
Satisfactory
The story briefly discusses treatments that are supported by clinical studies and professional societies.
We do wish the evidence for and success rates of the alternatives were described much more thoroughly.
Satisfactory
The story provides a website link and features one practitioner in the Philadelphia Inquirers’s readership area. Readers will get the hint that there aren’t a lot of front-line gynecologists and urologists offering this therapy, especially since the story explains that insurance will not pay for it.
Satisfactory
The story establishes why this treatment is novel–in that it’s something of a “trendy” concept being used without any evidence for it, and patients have to pay out-of-pocket if they want to try it.
Not Applicable
We did not find a news release.
Total Score: 8 of 9 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like