Just a few days ago, a paper in the journal PLoS One, “Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News?” showed how journalists are more likely to report on observational studies than on randomized clinical trials. The authors suggest this shows a systematic bias to report on weaker evidence.
And here’s one reason why that may happen.
This week the BMJ sent out a news release on a paper from the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, one of the specialist journals it publishes. And I’ve been waiting for days to address it – waiting for the journal’s embargo time to pass so that I’m not violating that sacred trust.
Nope. Sorry, BMJ news release writers. That’s an overstatement, to be kind. An inaccuracy, to be accurate. That’s not what the study showed, because it wasn’t equipped to show that anything “cut risk.” Proof of cutting risk would be proof of cause and effect. And the observational study in question can’t do that.
Don’t blame the authors of the journal article. They didn’t use cause-and-effect language. They concluded: “HRT is associated with an almost 40% reduction.” (My emphasis added.) That’s the way you describe the results of an observational study. That’s what we try to teach journalists and the public with a primer that’s been on our site for years. Maybe the BMJ should have its news release writers read it.
The researchers went even further, for any writer – journal news release writers included – who bothered to read the study. The research team wrote: “The main limitation of this study is its observational nature.”
To be clear, this was a large study with long followup. This could be a head-turner in medical circles.
But it still is what it is – a study that can only show statistical association.
And association ? causation.
We’ve written about this problem with BMJ news releases in the past, and will continue to do so until they get it right. Past examples:
As I wrote in one of these posts: Journals could help lift all ships – or they can (and sometimes do) help us all drown in a daily tsunami of global miscommunication about health news.
——————-
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (17)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Wendy Sue Swanson
January 22, 2014 at 6:05 pmThanks for writing this. Have you ever heard from BMJ staff after writing these posts?
It would behoove academic journals to require primary authors to submit a summary of their work (for the public) and takeaways to be used by the media and for use on social media. I’ve mentioned this to a couple of editors or large journals. Not there yet but perhaps we will be soon.
Trish Groves
January 23, 2014 at 12:15 pmHi Gary
Thanks for picking this up. With more than 50 journals, BMJ issues a lot of press releases every year (available here http://group.bmj.com/group/media/bmj-press-releases). If one slips below the usual standard we want to know about it, and we appreciate the work you and others do to keep our feet to the fire.
Just a few points of clarification:
* as you rightly said in your blog, the paper was not in The BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/) but in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases (http://ard.bmj.com/), one of more than 50 journals published by BMJ (the company http://company.bmj.com/)
* however, some of your audience – particularly on Twitter – have got the wrong end of the stick, thinking that the paper or press release were about The BMJ. Understandable, but worth correcting – I’ll do so on Twitter
* I check all press releases for research published in The BMJ and BMJ Open, the two journals I work for
* All press releases for all of BMJ’s journals are written by approved by the papers’ authors and are accompanied by the full paper, any linked editorial, and the authors’ contact details. See BMJ’s media release policy for details: http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-media
I’ll add that our press officers are very experienced and skilled, and that we all work hard to ensure good, accurate, transparent, and full reporting of research. And that I’ve responded here before to criticism: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/03/bmj-news-releases-observational-studies-overstatement/
I hope that – as you did last time – you’ll read my response as a genuine acknowledgement of the constructive criticism, rather than defensive behaviour.
Trish
Dr Trish Groves
Head of Research, The BMJ
Editor-in-Chief, BMJ Open
Twitter/trished
Gary Schwitzer
January 23, 2014 at 12:27 pmTrish,
Thanks for your response and acknowledgement of our criticism.
You are correct, I believe, that some folks on Twitter may have misinterpreted what I wrote, despite my attempt to be clear about the fact that the paper was not in The BMJ but in the Annals of Rheumatic Diseases – also published by BMJ (the company).
It is perhaps inevitable that an occasional news release “slips below the usual standard.” But given the repeated instances I’ve highlighted on this topic of news releases about observational studies, I would hope that BMJ-group-wide training could reduce the chance and number of slips. And perhaps other steps could be taken to ensure that the news release is, indeed, a true reflection of the researchers’ work – including limitations.
Trish Groves
January 23, 2014 at 12:16 pmUh oh; I meant:
All press releases for all of BMJ’s journals are written by experienced press officers and then approved by the papers’ authors…
Sorry.
Trish
Trish Groves
January 23, 2014 at 3:32 pmHere’s the article, with the press release posted alongside it:
http://ard.bmj.com/content/early/2014/01/07/annrheumdis-2013-204043.short?g=w_ard_ahead_tab
Trish
Terry Murray
February 4, 2014 at 12:31 amRe comment by Wendy Sue Swanson that “it would behoove academic journals to require primary authors to submit a summary of their work (for the public).”
Possibly. But many of these authors are actually incapable of summarizing their work for a lay audience. I spent 10 years on the animal care committee of a major Toronto teaching hospital. We required researchers to provide a “lay summary” with their submission to the committee. In that time, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of researchers who wrote lay summaries that included the species of animal they were were using, why they chose the species and clearly explained (in brief) what their research was about. I asked a researcher on the committee, who seemed to have particular difficulty with lay summaries, what he told his kids about his work. “It’s very hard,” he said.
Based on that and 35 years as a medical journalist trying to get researchers to speak in words of one syllable (figuratively), I don’t think the lay summary idea is going to work.
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