text_1: Antibiotics could dramatically reduce STIs, study says, raising tough new questions
text_2: Getty Images This is a story about a test of using antibiotics right after sex to reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in men who have sex with men and use no condoms. On the plus side, readers who stick with the story to the end are given many warnings from the researchers and independent sources about the risks of deploying such a strategy. In that respect this is a very thoroughly reported story. However, the story implies the results may be relevant to the general population even though the people included in the study have a risk of syphilis, for example, that is more then 1,000 times higher than the general population. All men in the study were also taking antiviral prophylaxis against HIV infection. Much of our concern about the story stems from the overly broad headline, and we’re the first to acknowledge that reporters often have little control over that key aspect of their work. Nevertheless, we think it’s something that needs to be addressed if readers are to receive an accurate picture of the research and its relevance. This is an important topic because rates of sexually transmitted infections remain high, especially among high-risk populations, and a safe and effective means of preventing them would be big news. News stories such as this, however, should be very clear about the potential relevance of studies to general readers. A more complete description of the study population (and of the long history of other studies that have looked at using antibiotics to prevent sexually transmitted diseases) would have helped readers understand just how specific and limited the results of this study are.