September 12, 2012
Spinning trial results in news releases and subsequent news coverage
A paper by a French team in PLoS Medicine, “Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study,” shows once again “the tendency for press releases and the associated media coverage of randomized clinical trials to place emphasis on the beneficial effects of experimental treatments.” More from the paper:
“This tendency is probably related to the presence of “spin” in conclusions of the scientific article’s abstract. This tendency, in conjunction with other well-known biases such as publication bias, selective reporting of outcomes, and lack of external validity, may be responsible for an important gap between the public perception of the beneficial effect and the real effect of the treatment studied.
…
…previous work showed that exaggerated and inappropriate coverage of research findings in the news media is linked to inappropriate reporting of press releases. Our study adds to these results showing that “spin” in press releases and the news is related to the presence of “spin” in the published article, namely the abstract conclusions. Additionally, our work highlights that this inappropriate reporting could bias readers’ interpretation of research results.
Consequently, reviewers and editors of published articles have an important role to play in the dissemination of research findings and should be particularly aware of the need to ensure that the conclusions reported are an appropriate reflection of the trial findings and do not overinterpret or misinterpret the results.”
The work of HealthNewsReview.org for the past 6.5 years has shown a clear pattern of stories that emphasize benefits and minimize or ignore potential harms. It is our wish and hope that, in the future, we will be able to launch a parallel project to review and evaluate the content of news releases to broaden our analysis of the messages about health care interventions that flood the American public every day.
(Photo credit: © Copyright Oxana Maher and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.)
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.
Greg Pawelski
September 12, 2012 at 12:15 pm“…previous work showed that exaggerated and inappropriate coverage of research findings in the news media is linked to inappropriate reporting of press releases.”
Has it ever been thought that exaggerated and inappropriate coverage of research findings may come about by peer-reviewed articles with their pre-conceived bias? Peer review lacks consistent standards. Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in professional medical journals have called into question the merits of their peer-review system. Passing peer-review is not the scientific equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. The major flaws in the system of peer-reviewed science is reason enough why journalists should avoid relying on the latest, greatest studies for medical news coverage.
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