January 22, 2014

Misleading BMJ news releases may be one reason journalists report on more observational studies

Posted By

The headline of the news release: HRT cuts risk of repeat knee/hip replacement surgery by 40%.

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.

——————-

https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer

https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu

and on Facebook.

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 pm

Thanks 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 pm

Hi 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 pm

Trish,

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 pm

Uh 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 pm

Here’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 am

Re 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.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.