HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Face time with MyClyns anti-germ spray
February 01, 2010
We appreciate the Healthy Skeptic column in this paper. And this is another fine example of why we feel that way.
Our Review Summary
Take water, add sodium chloride, zap it with an electric charge. And then sell it for ten bucks a bottle as an anti-germ spray. That's the story the LA Times tells with this column.
Good as this column was, though, it could have been much stronger if it had scrutinized the quality of the studies it cited and told us more about how/why the FDA approved this as a medical device.
Why This Matters:
With all of the anti-microbial marketing bombarding us like an attack on our immune system these days, it's good to have a newspaper evaluate the claims and the evidence for us.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The advertising for, and availability of, the "anti-germ spray" is obvious.
Explicit. $9-10 for a fifth-of-an-ounce spray bottle.
The realities of how germs are spread - and how this might be prevented - are the focus of the story.
The column may have been a bit too generous, stating that:
"Several scientific studies have shown that MyClyns can kill a wide variety of germs. A 2005 study in Mexico found that the same solution in MyClyns (in this case, sold by Oculus Innovative Sciences Inc., under the brand name Microcyn) killed yeast as well as E. coli and staph bacteria in the laboratory. The study also found that it was effective against HIV and adenovirus, a type of respiratory virus, in the lab. The solution has also been shown to speed the healing of diabetic foot ulcers, presumably because it wiped out germs that could cause a sore to fester."
But it didn't evaluate those studies. Were the first two findings ever replicated in people in real-life situations?
And the column never commented on what happens when water "gets zapped with an electrical charge" - the so-called "super oxidized" power of the product.
if questionable effectiveness is a harm, this story raised those questions. What harms were reported to the FDA in order to get marketing approval?
We wished the story had explained more about how the product was approved by the FDA as a device, not as a drug. Was there a novel claim made? Or was the device approved under the "substantially equivalent" 510K clearance? Regardless, a comment on what FDA approval means - or doesn't mean - was warranted in this case.
The column cited only the manufacturer's TV ad, saying that the product "kills 99% of germs." Studies were cited but no data were given.
Ths kind of column is the anti-news-release.
Several independent and skeptical perspectives were included.
How a story ends is often the punchline. This story ended quoting an expert:
"It sounds like a sexy product, but simple hand-washing is likely to be more effective for preventing the flu than a one-time spray in the face."
Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.