This is a brief story about two studies of a topical skin treatment for excessive sweating, directed at an investor/financial audience.
The story has several major deficiencies, the most egregious being the lack of any specific, useful details of the new treatment, and the research so far conducted on it. We actually found the drug company’s news release to be more informative.
The story borders on disease mongering as well, since few details are given what makes this condition more than just a variation of a normal state of health.
While it may not be a disease per se, excessive sweating can be an embarrassing condition to live with, and new topical treatments would likely be welcomed by people who want to avoid oral medications, injections or surgery.
The product is not yet on the market, and is defined as experimental, so we’ll rate this as N/A. But readers would still benefit from seeing the projected steps needed to get on the market, which isn’t made clear here.
Not enough detail is contained in the description of the drug’s benefits: “a significant improvement in the severity of sweating was seen in 52.8 percent of the patients treated with the drug, compared with 28.3 percent patients in the control group, on a scale designed by the company. (and 66.1 percent versus 26.9 percent in the control group in the second trial).
How are we to know what this means when we don’t know how “improvement” or “severity” is measured?
No harms are mentioned, and given the lack of details on what the topical medication is made of, it would be difficult find out via independent research.
The story didn’t include enough information on the quality of the evidence. For example, how valid and reliable is the proprietary scale the drug company created to measure sweating? What are the measurement tool’s limitations? And the studies’ limitations? Also, the story didn’t indicate that this data hasn’t been reviewed by independent experts, nor published in a peer-reviewed journal.
We’re told in the story that about 3.9 million Americans suffer from excessive underarm sweating. But based on what analysis? What’s the source for that figure, and is it trustworthy?
A spokesperson from the company is quoted. However, no independent sources are used.
Many alternatives are mentioned, and that’s enough to skirt by as Satisfactory.
However, the discussion of alternatives (such as antiperspirants and Botox injections) seems mostly to revolve around pointing out how problematic they are, without any discussion of actual comparative effectiveness, which is a disservice to readers.
We learn it is still in its experimental stages.
The story makes no unfounded claims about novelty, and the story makes it clear that an effective topical treatment via wipes would be new for this condition.
The story didn’t appear to rely primarily on the news release, as we don’t see signs of quotes or text being lifted directly without acknowledgment. We’ll rate this N/A.
However, the release does have additional valuable context that we wish had been included (with acknowledgement), such as study details and adverse effects of the medication.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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