Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study

Objective To determine whether the quality of press releases issued by medical journals can influence the quality of associated newspaper stories. Design Retrospective cohort study of medical journal press releases and associated news stories. Setting We reviewed consecutive issues (going backwards from January 2009) of five major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine) to identify the first 100 original research articles with quantifiable outcomes and that had generated any newspaper coverage (unique stories ≥100 words long). We identified 759 associated newspaper stories using Lexis Nexis and Factiva searches, and 68 journal press releases using Eurekalert and journal website searches. Two independent research assistants assessed the quality of journal articles, press releases, and a stratified random sample of associated newspaper stories (n=343) by using a structured coding scheme for the presence of specific quality measures: basic study facts, quantification of the main result, harms, and limitations. Main outcome Proportion of newspaper stories with specific quality measures (adjusted for whether the quality measure was present in the journal article’s abstract or editor note). Results We recorded a median of three newspaper stories per journal article (range 1-72). Of 343 stories analysed, 71% reported on articles for which medical journals had issued press releases. 9% of stories quantified the main result with absolute risks when this information was not in the press release, 53% did so when it was in the press release (relative risk 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 15.4), and 20% when no press release was issued (2.2, 0.83 to 6.1). 133 (39%) stories reported on research describing beneficial interventions. 24% mentioned harms (or specifically declared no harms) when harms were not mentioned in the press release, 68% when mentioned in the press release (2.8, 1.1 to 7.4), and 36% when no press release was issued (1.5, 0.49 to 4.4). 256 (75%) stories reported on research with important limitations. 16% reported any limitations when limitations were not mentioned in the press release, 48% when mentioned in the press release (3.0, 1.5 to 6.2), and 21% if no press release was issued (1.3, 0.50 to 3.6). Conclusion High quality press releases issued by medical journals seem to make the quality of associated newspaper stories better, whereas low quality press releases might make them worse.

[1]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[2]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Press releases: translating research into news. , 2002, JAMA.

[3]  D. Cook,et al.  The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  E. Fisher,et al.  Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

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

[6]  Steven Woloshin,et al.  Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic? , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

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

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

[9]  Jo Ellen Stryker,et al.  Reporting medical information: effects of press releases and newsworthiness on medical journal articles' visibility in the news media. , 2002, Preventive medicine.

[10]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  News media coverage of screening mammography for women in their 40s and tamoxifen for primary prevention of breast cancer. , 2002, JAMA.

[11]  F M Haaijer-Ruskamp,et al.  Journalists and their sources of ideas and information on medicines. , 1994, Social science & medicine.

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

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

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

[15]  C. Ramsay,et al.  Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. , 2002, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

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

[17]  D. McCormick,et al.  News media coverage of medication research: reporting pharmaceutical company funding and use of generic medication names. , 2008, JAMA.

[18]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers , 1995, BMJ.

[19]  S D Walter,et al.  Small sample estimation of log odds ratios from logistic regression and fourfold tables. , 1985, Statistics in medicine.