Media Reporting of Practice-Changing Clinical Trials in Oncology: A North American Perspective

Abstract

Introduction. Media reporting of clinical trials impacts patient-oncologist interactions. We sought to characterize the accuracy of media and Internet reporting of practice-changing clinical trials in oncology. Materials and Methods. The first media articles referencing 17 practice-changing clinical trials were collected from 4 media outlets: newspapers, cable news, cancer websites, and industry websites. Measured outcomes were media reporting score, social media score, and academic citation score. The media reporting score was a measure of completeness of information detailed in media articles as scored by a 15-point scoring instrument. The social media score represented the ubiquity of social media presence referencing 17 practice-changing clinical trials in cancer as determined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in its annual report, entitled Clinical Cancer Advances 2012; social media score was calculated from Twitter, Facebook, and Google searches. The academic citation score comprised total citations from Google Scholar plus the Scopus database, which represented the academic impact per clinical cancer advance. Results. From 170 media articles, 107 (63%) had sufficient data for analysis. Cohen’s κ coefficient demonstrated reliability of the media reporting score instrument with a coefficient of determination of 94%. Per the media reporting score, information was most complete from industry, followed by cancer websites, newspapers, and cable news. The most commonly omitted items, in descending order, were study limitations, exclusion criteria, conflict of interest, and other. The social media score was weakly correlated with academic citation score. Conclusion. Media outlets appear to have set a low bar for coverage of many practice-changing advances in oncology, with reports of scientific breakthroughs often omitting basic study facts and cautions, which may mislead the public. The media should be encouraged to use a standardized reporting template and provide accessible references to original source information whenever feasible.

Adult patient perspectives on clinical trial result reporting: A survey of cancer patients

“…3 Additionally, providing outcomes directly to participants is more accurate than the often sensationalized, incomplete, or exaggerated claims purported by mainstream media. 9–12 However, some authors have identified potential pitfalls of disclosure, including emotional distress from negative results, 13 release of premature outcomes, and the time or cost constraints that limit the ability to disclose information effectively. 13–15…”

Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses

“…Other consumer and patient sources – In a systematic review of studies assessing the quality of online health information for consumers, Eysenbach et al found 55 of 79 studies (70%) had concluded that quality was a problem. 71 In more recently published studies, others have found problems with the information on anti-vaccination websites, 72 cancer and oncological industry websites, 73 websites for clinics offering weight loss surgery, 74 and websites for fertility centres. 75 In their study of media coverage of practice-changing clinical trials in oncology, Andrew et al .…”

Reporting of Randomized Trials in Common Cancers in the Lay Media

“…In a study of 17 practice-changing clinical trials, it has been demonstrat- ed that a media reporting score, defined as a measure of completeness of information detailed in media articles, showed most thorough reporting for industry, followed by cancer websites (including www.ascopost.com, www. cancer.org and www.cancer.gov), newspapers as well as cable news [14]. The most frequently excluded items from media coverage were study limitations, followed by exclusion criteria, adverse events, and conflicts of interest.…”

“…However, there are several important limitations of published studies. First, only a small number of RCTs have been explored and searching of media coverage was not systematic and therefore likely incomplete [14,15]. Second, analyses included primarily media reporting from eminent scientific meetings and were not based on research findings published in peer-reviewed medical journals.…”

“…Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated that quality of reporting is variable with some sources providing neither clear referencing nor a statement of the methodologic strength of evidence or the maturity and quality of the data. Deficiencies in reporting have been described particularly for the lay press such as industry websites, newspapers, and cable news [14].…”