Characteristics of Medical Research News Reported on Front Pages of Newspapers

Background The placement of medical research news on a newspaper's front page is intended to gain the public's attention, so it is important to understand the source of the news in terms of research maturity and evidence level. Methodology/Principal Findings We searched LexisNexis to identify medical research reported on front pages of major newspapers published from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002. We used MEDLINE and Google Scholar to find journal articles corresponding to the research, and determined their evidence level. Of 734 front-page medical research stories identified, 417 (57%) referred to mature research published in peer-reviewed journals. The remaining 317 stories referred to preliminary findings presented at scientific or press meetings; 144 (45%) of those stories mentioned studies that later matured (i.e. were published in journals within 3 years after news coverage). The evidence-level distribution of the 515 journal articles quoted in news stories reporting on mature research (3% level I, 21% level II, 42% level III, 4% level IV, and 31% level V) differed from that of the 170 reports of preliminary research that later matured (1%, 19%, 35%, 12%, and 33%, respectively; chi-square test, P = .0009). No news stories indicated evidence level. Fewer than 1 in 5 news stories reporting preliminary findings acknowledged the preliminary nature of their content. Conclusions/Significance Only 57% of front-page stories reporting on medical research are based on mature research, which tends to have a higher evidence level than research with preliminary findings. Medical research news should be clearly referenced and state the evidence level and limitations to inform the public of the maturity and quality of the source.

[1]  Vincent Kiernan,et al.  Diffusion of News about Research , 2003 .

[2]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Media coverage of scientific meetings: too much, too soon? , 2002, JAMA.

[3]  David L. Sackett,et al.  Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't - It's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence , 1996 .

[4]  E. Marshall.  The Power of the Front Page of The New York Times , 1998, Science.

[5]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review. , 2002, JAMA.

[6]  J. PérezMartín,et al.  [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors]. , 2008, Revista alergia Mexico.

[7]  D. Sackett,et al.  Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't , 1996, BMJ.

[8]  Charles Kooperberg,et al.  Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. , 2002, JAMA.

[9]  Gary Schwitzer,et al.  How Do US Journalists Cover Treatments, Tests, Products, and Procedures? An Evaluation of 500 Stories , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[10]  Jakob D. Jensen.  Scientific Uncertainty in News Coverage of Cancer Research: Effects of Hedging on Scientists' and Journalists' Credibility , 2008 .

[11]  D. Henry,et al.  Monitoring the quality of medical news reporting: early experience with media doctor , 2005, The Medical journal of Australia.

[12]  L. Schwartz,et al.  Media reporting on research presented at scientific meetings: more caution needed , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[13]  D. Mark,et al.  Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology , 1995 .

[14]  M S Wilkes,et al.  The public dissemination of medical research: problems and solutions. , 1997, Journal of health communication.

[15]  A. S. Relman,et al.  The Ingelfinger Rule. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. , 1994 .

[17]  C. N. Stewart.  Press before paper—when media and science collide , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[18]  R. Horton,et al.  [Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors]. , 1992, Revista de sanidad e higiene publica.

[19]  R. Horton,et al.  Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals , 1989 .

[20]  V de Semir,et al.  Press releases of science journal articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. , 1998, JAMA.

[21]  Joel Lexchin,et al.  How well do Canadian media outlets convey medical treatment information? , 2008, Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal.

[22]  R. Wears,et al.  Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. , 1998, JAMA.

[23]  L. Altman.  The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review-part 1 , 1996, The Lancet.

[24]  D. Phillips,et al.  Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  S B Soumerai,et al.  Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  T. Wilkie.  Sources in science: who can we trust? , 1996, The Lancet.

[27]  L. Altman.  The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review-part 2 , 1996, The Lancet.

[28]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  What's the rush? The dissemination and adoption of preliminary research results. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  R M Pitkin,et al.  Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. , 1999, JAMA.

[30]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.