Medical Research and the News Media
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
To the Editor: Investigators, academic institutions, specialty societies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical-device manufacturers are listed in Campion's editorial (Dec. 2 issue)1 as benefiting from media exposure — to these should be added medical journals that have a vested interest in attracting media coverage, subscribers, and submissions. Although the New England Journal of Medicine has avoided doing so, many journals have been shown to issue press releases that do not acknowledge limitations in published studies, thus exacerbating misunderstanding on the part of the media and the public.2
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh have recognized that something is needed between the scientific content of journals and media coverage of medicine and believe that doctors should not passively accept the media's lack of interest in follow-up. We have established a new public Web site (www.behindthemedicalheadlines.com), which provides short background articles, written by specialists, on selected areas of interest to the media. The Web site is financed by the Colleges, articles are peer-reviewed, and conflicts of interest are sought out. Although this Web site is relatively new, public usage is encouraging, and we would recommend ventures such as this to others.
Niall D.C. Finlayson, B.Sc., M.B.
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH2 1JQ, United Kingdom
Stephen J. Nixon, B.Sc., M.B.
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH8 9DW, United Kingdom
Graeme W. McAlister
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH2 1JQ, United Kingdom
g.mcalister@rcpe.ac.uk
References
Campion EW. Medical research and the news media. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2436-2437.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA 2002;287:2856-2858.
To the Editor: Campion identifies responsibilities on the part of medical journals, investigators, and the media for ensuring accurate interpretation and reporting of medical news. One barrier to improvement is the absence of good critiques of media reporting. In Australia, a media-monitoring Web site (www.mediadoctor.org.au) operated by an independent group of clinicians and academics attempts to provide such critiques. News stories about medical treatments are assessed with regard to quality by two reviewers using a 10-item rating scale. Consensus scores and critiques are posted on the Web site, along with cumulative scores for major media outlets.
A review of the first 104 stories evaluated (from February through September 2004) indicates that the major weaknesses are inadequate quantification of evidence on benefits and harms, failure to acknowledge treatment alternatives, and the absence of cost information and of comment by independent experts. Online media performed significantly worse than print media.
Patricia McGettigan, M.D.
David Henry, M.B.
University of Newcastle
Newcastle, 2298 NSW, Australia
gmcgetti@mail.newcastle.edu.au
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh have recognized that something is needed between the scientific content of journals and media coverage of medicine and believe that doctors should not passively accept the media's lack of interest in follow-up. We have established a new public Web site (www.behindthemedicalheadlines.com), which provides short background articles, written by specialists, on selected areas of interest to the media. The Web site is financed by the Colleges, articles are peer-reviewed, and conflicts of interest are sought out. Although this Web site is relatively new, public usage is encouraging, and we would recommend ventures such as this to others.
Niall D.C. Finlayson, B.Sc., M.B.
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH2 1JQ, United Kingdom
Stephen J. Nixon, B.Sc., M.B.
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH8 9DW, United Kingdom
Graeme W. McAlister
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH2 1JQ, United Kingdom
g.mcalister@rcpe.ac.uk
References
Campion EW. Medical research and the news media. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2436-2437.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA 2002;287:2856-2858.
To the Editor: Campion identifies responsibilities on the part of medical journals, investigators, and the media for ensuring accurate interpretation and reporting of medical news. One barrier to improvement is the absence of good critiques of media reporting. In Australia, a media-monitoring Web site (www.mediadoctor.org.au) operated by an independent group of clinicians and academics attempts to provide such critiques. News stories about medical treatments are assessed with regard to quality by two reviewers using a 10-item rating scale. Consensus scores and critiques are posted on the Web site, along with cumulative scores for major media outlets.
A review of the first 104 stories evaluated (from February through September 2004) indicates that the major weaknesses are inadequate quantification of evidence on benefits and harms, failure to acknowledge treatment alternatives, and the absence of cost information and of comment by independent experts. Online media performed significantly worse than print media.
Patricia McGettigan, M.D.
David Henry, M.B.
University of Newcastle
Newcastle, 2298 NSW, Australia
gmcgetti@mail.newcastle.edu.au