Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News?

Selvaraj, Senthil; Borkar, Durga S.; Prasad, Vinay

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085355

Cited by 50 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found a majority of online news articles reporting on peer-reviewed papers, however this may be partly explained by our exclusion of more general news articles that did not report on a specified study. Previous studies have highlighted inconsistent quality and accuracy of science news reporting practices at multiple levels, ranging from institutional press releases to news pieces [16,17,21], and found that study types with poorer methodology gain more media coverage than research based on stronger evidence [33][34][35]. Our analysis of reporting quality and study type distribution in online news is consistent with previous evidence of poor quality reporting by broadsheet news sources [19,20,23] and a bias towards primary research [6,9,46,47].…”

Section: Amberg -Figuresupporting

confidence: 88%

“…However, there is limited literature on content bias in science news reporting. Quality and style have been shown to vary across news outlets [16,17], but even the largest newspapers with the best overall standards tend to cover more studies with poorer methodology and observational studies over RCTs or systematic reviews [33][34][35].…”

Section: Content Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may reflect a similar trend in the publication frequency of these study types -by their nature, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are less abundant than primary studies -or the way institutes promote their research. Nevertheless, evidence of a skew towards lower quality studies in the news [33] indicates that publication bias might be an underlying factor in newspapers favouring research with poorer methodology. Similar trends have been observed in other publications, with observational studies on average receiving more attention than both systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [34,35].…”

Section: Amberg -Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cancer In The News: Bias And Quality In Media Reporting Of Cancer Research

Amberg

Saunders

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalising and inaccurate reporting, giving rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature.The main aim of this study was to investigate the nature and quality of cancer research covered in online news reports by four major news sources from USA, UK and Australia. We measured significant variation in reporting quality, and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, and in the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these finding for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science and appreciate the outcomes of publicly funded research, avoid undermining trust in science, and assist informed decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Amberg -Figuresupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Content Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Amberg -Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cancer In The News: Bias And Quality In Media Reporting Of Cancer Research

Amberg

Saunders

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studier og forskningsresultater som publiseres i gode tidsskrifter, og med solid metode, får sjelden medieoppmerksomhet (8). Artikler som er av dårligere kvalitet, og med dårligere forskningsmetode, omtales oftere (9). Det kan skyldes at journalistene ikke har tid til å sette seg inn i sakene og lener seg for mye på tidsskriftenes pressemeldinger (10,11).…”

unclassified

Om LSD på lesesalen, bønder og proporsjoner

Bramness¹

2018

Tidsskriftet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study reviewing media coverage of medical research found that newspapers were more likely to cover observational studies than randomised control trials and preferentially cover research with weaker methodology [10, 11]. However, in mitigation, journalists point to the fact that they have the often onerous task of making esoteric cancer science ‘interesting’ to the general public.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ecancermedicalscience

Aggarwal

Batura

Sullivan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The media plays a vital role in informing the public about new developments in cancer research and influencing cancer policy. This is no easy task, in view of the myriad of trials and wonder drugs that purport to be the ‘magic bullet’. However, misrepresentation can have profound consequences. In this qualitative study, we sought to understand the interaction between the media and cancer through the perspective of European science journalists by defining their attitudes towards current cancer research and challenges faced when reporting science news. A total of 67 respondents took part in this online survey, which was distributed by the European CanCer Organisation (ECCO) to all its media contacts between June and September 2013. Fifty-three per cent had over 20 years experience in reporting science news stories. The respondents utilised a number of media formats, including newsprint, online services, and radio.Fifty per cent ranked public interest as the greatest influence on their selection of cancer research topics, followed by topicality. Respondents were conscious of being fed ambiguous and exaggerated results from trials by the research community. Sixty-five per cent of respondents would appreciate access to a forum of experts willing to provide comment on new research findings. Seventy per cent highlighted the importance of prompt responses from scientists and researchers during correspondence, and the need to have advance warning of new developments (49%). To conclude – coverage of cancer related issues and scientific advances require greater collaboration between the press and cancer healthcare community to provide both credibility and accountability for the health information disseminated. Key areas include a more precise definition of the research context and differentiation of absolute and relative risks, as well as individual and population risks and an informed discussion about the realities and limitations of cancer care and research.

show abstract

Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News?

Cited by 50 publications

References 24 publications

Cancer In The News: Bias And Quality In Media Reporting Of Cancer Research

Cancer In The News: Bias And Quality In Media Reporting Of Cancer Research

Om LSD på lesesalen, bønder og proporsjoner

ecancermedicalscience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About