Important study facts often missing in media reports

William Wagner · medicine forum Guru Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 809

http://www.eurekalert.org/

"Given the reality that a decrease in media coverage of scientific
meetings is not likely, the authors urge reporters and editors to make
sure their stories include three things: (1) basic study facts: what
kind of study was done, how many subjects were included, what was the
main result; (2) cautions about study designs with intrinsic
limitations; and (3) clear statements about the preliminary stage of the
work under discussion."

.............................................................
Public release date: 8-Jun-2006

Contact: Dr. Lisa Schwartz
lisa.schwartz@dartmouth.edu
802-296-5178
Dartmouth Medical School
Important study facts often missing in media reports about medical
research

WHITE RIVER JUNCTION, VT/HANOVER, NH -- News stories about medical
research, often based on initial findings presented at professional
conferences, frequently omit basic facts about the study and fail to
highlight important limitations, warn Dartmouth researchers in the
latest issue of the Medical Journal of Australia. Such omissions can
mislead the public and distort the actual significance of the research,
they caution.
Dr. Lisa Schwartz and Dr. Steven Woloshin, both Associate Professors of
Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School (Hanover, New Hampshire) and at the
VA Outcomes Group (White River Junction, Vermont), writing in the June
4, 2006 issue of MJA, studied media coverage of research presented at
scientific meetings.
"Scientific meetings are an important forum for researchers to exchange
ideas and present work in progress. But much of the work presented is
not ready for public consumption," said Schwartz. "The studies have
undergone limited review and findings may change substantially by the
time the final report is published in a medical journal." And, she
noted, "Some meeting presentations are never published at all."
Nonetheless, scientific meeting research receives extensive news media
coverage. "Unless journalists are careful to provide basic study facts
and highlight limitations the public may be misled about the meaning,
importance and validity of the research", said Woloshin. For their
study, the team analyzed newspaper, TV and radio stories that appeared
in the US for research reports from five major scientific meetings in
2002 and 2003 to see if basic study facts (eg., size, design) were
reported; whether cautions about inherent study weaknesses were noted;
and if the news stories were clear about the preliminary stage of the
research.
The researchers found that basic study facts were often missing. For
example, a third of reports failed to mention study size; 40% did not
quantify the main result at all.
Important study limitations were often missing. For example, only 6%
(1/17) of the news stories about animal studies noted that results might
not apply to humans. And only 2 of 175 stories about unpublished studies
noted that the study was unpublished. Schwartz and Woloshin, who
frequently present to the media on how to understand and accurately
report research results, say that while reporters can and should do
better, another reason for misinterpreted or "over-hyped" research is
its early release at professional meetings that reporters are encouraged
to attend.
"It is not hard to understand why research presented at scientific
meetings garners extensive media attention," they write. "Researchers
benefit from the attention because it is a mark of academic success,
their academic affiliates benefit because good publicity attracts
patients and donors, and research funders public and private benefit
when they can show a good return on their investments. The meeting
organizers benefit too; extensive media coverage attracts more
advertisers, and higher profile scientists for the following year,
guaranteeing more dramatic reports and ultimately more press."
Moreover, they note, "the public has a strong appetite for medical news
and scientific meetings provide the media with an easy source of
provocative material."
Given the reality that a decrease in media coverage of scientific
meetings is not likely, the authors urge reporters and editors to make
sure their stories include three things: (1) basic study facts: what
kind of study was done, how many subjects were included, what was the
main result; (2) cautions about study designs with intrinsic
limitations; and (3) clear statements about the preliminary stage of the
work under discussion.

###
Drs. Woloshin and Schwartz were supported by Veterans Affairs Career
Development Awards in Health Services Research and Development and
Robert Wood Johnson Generalist Faculty Scholar Awards. This study was
supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute and from a
Research Enhancement Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Contact: Dr. Lisa Schwartz 802-296-5178 lisa.schwartz@dartmouth.edu

--
S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

Google