Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community

Physician Trust in the News Media and Attitudes toward COVID-19

CONTEXT

Previous research has established the importance of primary care physicians in communicating public health directives. The implicit assumption is that, because of their expertise, doctors provide accurate and up-to-date information to their patients independent of partisan affiliation or media trust.

METHODS

The authors conducted an online survey of 625 primary care physicians and used the results to test (1) whether physician trust in media outlets is consistent with their political partisanship, and (2) whether trust in media outlets influences (a) personal concern that someone in their family will get sick, (b) perceptions about the seriousness of the pandemic as portrayed in the media, and (c) trust in federal government agencies and scientists.

FINDINGS

Physicians are better positioned to critically evaluate health-related news, but they are subject to the same biases that influence public opinion. Physicians' partisan commitments influence media trust, and media trust influences concern that a family member will get sick, perceptions regarding the seriousness of the pandemic, and trust in federal government agencies and scientists.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician trust in specific media outlets shapes their understanding of the pandemic, and-to the extent that they trust conservative media outlets-it may limit their effectiveness as health policy messengers.

Slow, slow, quick, quick, slow: five altmetric sources observed over a decade show evolving trends, by research age, attention source maturity and open access status

The study of temporal trends in altmetrics is under-developed, and this multi-year observation study addresses some of the deficits in our understanding of altmetric behaviour over time. The attention surrounding research outputs, as partially captured by altmetrics, or alternative metrics, constitutes many varied forms of data. Over the years 2008–2013, a set of 7739 papers were sampled on six occasions. Five altmetric data sources were recorded (Twitter, Mendeley, News, Blogs and Policy) and analysed for temporal trends, with particular attention being paid to their Open Access status and discipline. Twitter attention both starts and ends quickly. Mendeley readers accumulate quickly, and continue to grow over the following years. News and blog attention is quick to start, although news attention persists over a longer timeframe. Citations in policy documents are slow to start, and are observed to be growing over a decade after publication. Over time, growth in Twitter activity is confirmed, alongside an apparent decline in blogging attention. Mendeley usage is observed to grow, but shows signs of recent decline. Policy attention is identified as the slowest form of impact studied by altmetrics, and one that strongly favours the Humanities and Social Sciences. The Open Access Altmetrics Advantage is seen to emerge and evolve over time, with each attention source showing different trends. The existence of late-emergent attention in all attention sources is confirmed.

Changes in health communication in the age of COVID-19: A study on the dissemination of preprints to the public

Introduction

Preprints have become an important tool for meeting the challenges of health communication in the context of COVID-19. They allow scientists to disseminate their results more quickly due to the absence of a peer review process. Preprints have been well-received by scientists, however, there have been concerns about the exposure of wider public audiences to preprints due in part to this lack of peer review.

Methods

The aim of this study is to examine the dissemination of preprints on medRxiv and bioRxiv during the COVID-19 pandemic using content analysis and statistical analysis.

Results

Our findings show that preprints have played an unprecedented role in disseminating COVID-19-related science results to the public.

Discussion

While the overall media coverage of preprints is unsatisfactory, digital native news media performed better than legacy media in reporting preprints, which means that we could make the most of digital native media to improve health communication. This study contributes to understanding how science communication has evolved in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and provides some practical recommendations.

Correlations between the selection of topics by news media and scientific journals

The aim of this study is to reveal a robust correlation between the amount of attention international journalism devotes to scientific papers and the amount of attention scientific journals devote to the respective topics. Using a Mainstream-Media-Score (MSM) ≥ 100 (which we regard as an indicator for news media attention) from the altmetrics provider Altmetric, we link 983 research articles with 185,166 thematically similar articles from the PubMed database (which we use to operationalize attention from scientific journals). The method we use is to test whether there is a concomitant increase in scientific attention after a research article has received popular media coverage. To do so, we compare the quotient of the number of thematically similar articles published in scientific journals during the period before and after the publication of an MSM ≥ 100 article. Our main result shows that in 59 percent of cases, more thematically similar articles were published in scientific journals after a scientific paper received noteworthy news media coverage than before (p < 0.01). In this context, we neither found significant differences between various types of scientific journal (p = 0.3) nor between scientific papers that were originally published in renowned opinion-leading journals or in less renowned, non-opinion-leading journals (p = 0.1). Our findings indicate a robust correlation between the choice of topics in the mass media and in research. However, our study cannot clarify whether this correlation occurs because researchers and/or scientific journals are oriented towards public relevance (publicity effect) or whether the correlation is due to the parallelism of relevance attributions in quality journalism and research (earmark hypothesis). We infer that topics of social relevance are (more) likely to be picked up by popular media as well as by scientific journals. Altogether, our study contributes new empirical findings to the relationship between topic selection in journalism and in research.

Interpretation of observational studies: the good, the bad and the sensational

A Nutrition Society member-led meeting was held online on 18th January 2021 to discuss the role of observational studies in developing public health policy and dietary guidelines. In addition, participants debated media reporting of observational studies and the implications for public perception and trust in science. Speakers outlined the benefits of observational studies and how they fit within the suite of research tools available for estimating dietary intakes and determining their impact on health and disease risk. However, there are clear limitations, such as conscious and unconscious bias, measurement error, confounding and representativeness of populations. Researchers can overcome some of these issues with careful design, awareness of inter-individual variation, open and transparent reporting of findings, and hypothesis-driven statistical analysis to avoid multiple testing errors. Although there is evidence that data provided by nutritional epidemiology can be misleading, strong and thoughtful methodology including pre-registration, risk of bias assessment, awareness of confounders, and evidence grading can minimise potential bias, particularly when conducting systematic reviews. Translation of relative risk into population health impact is important and feeds into the need for responsible lay communication of results via mass media, especially regarding assumptions about cause and effect. Although use of mass media can bring benefits to academia, responsible dissemination is essential and starts with the press release. In conclusion, nutritional epidemiology is an important tool for exploring the risk/benefits of dietary patterns and contributing to health improvement via dietary guidelines, evidence-based policy and responsible lay communication provided its limitations are fully understood.

Research Promotion is Associated with Broader Influence and Higher Impact of Plastic Surgery Publications

BACKGROUND

Social media has altered the mechanisms by which published research is disseminated and accessed. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of promotion on research article dissemination, influence, and impact in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

METHODS

All articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018 were obtained and reviewed to determine inclusion/exclusion and for the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), citations, relative citation rate (RCR), and 16 unique promotional tags (journal club, editor's pick, press release, patient safety, etc.) as indexed on the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery website. 1,502 articles were included in the analysis. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlations, and Student t-tests where appropriate with a predetermined level of significance of p≤0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 637 articles (42.4%) had a promotional tag, while 252 (16.8%) had multiple tags. Articles with promotional tags had higher AAS (30.35 vs 8.22; p<0.001), more citations (11.96 vs 8.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (2.97 vs 2.06; p<0.001) compared to articles without a tag. Articles with multiple tags had higher AAS (50.17 vs 17.39; p<0.001), more citations (15.78 vs 9.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (3.67 vs 2.51; p<0.001) compared to articles with only one tag. As the number of tags increased for an article, AAS (p<0.001), citation count (p<0.001), and RCR (p<0.001) likewise increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis strongly suggests that promotion of research articles is associated with significantly wider dissemination, broader visibility, and more subsequent citations in the literature.

Researchers in cardiology – Why and how to get on Twitter?

Social media (SoMe) for professional use has gained importance for scientific impact. In cardiology, Twitter is among the preferred SoMe platforms for scientific dissemination. We are in the middle of a paradigm shift within scientific dissemination as more scientific content is presented on Twitter, and it is crucial to embrace it. Therefore, this paper includes a description and discussion of the existing literature reporting the impact of Twitter on research dissemination, as well as a guide on how to get started. In addition, we describe a case of the Danish Cardiovascular Academy Summer Meeting 2021 as an example of a scientific event that was promoted on Twitter before, during and after the event and present a survey showing that participants were inspired to increase the use of SoMe professionally. Finally, the paper addresses limitations of Twitter and SoMe for scientific use and discuss a need for an increased evidence base.

Twitter promotion is associated with higher citation rates of cardiovascular articles: the ESC Journals Randomized Study

The association between the dissemination of scientific articles on Twitter and online visibility (as assessed by the Altmetric Score) is still controversial, and the impact on citation rates has never been rigorously addressed for cardiovascular medicine journals using a randomized design. The ESC Journals Study randomized 695 papers published in the ESC Journal Family (March 2018-May 2019) for promotion on Twitter or to a control arm (with no active tweeting from ESC channels) and aimed to assess whether Twitter promotion was associated with an increase in citation rates (primary endpoint) and of the Altmetric Score. This is the final analysis including 694 articles (one paper excluded due to retraction). After a median follow-up of 994 days (interquartile range: 936-1063 days), Twitter promotion of articles was associated with a 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.15) higher rate of citations, and this effect was independent of the type of article. Altmetric Attention Score and number of users tweeting were positive predictors for the number of citations. A social media strategy of Twitter promotion for cardiovascular medicine papers seems to be associated with increased online visibility and higher numbers of citations.

Research articles promoted in embargo e-mails receive higher citations and altmetrics

In order to be able to provide thorough and timely coverage on the most recent scientific research, science journalists frequently rely on embargoed information sent to them by publishers of scientific journals. In such embargo e-mails, publishers purposefully bring selected upcoming releases to the journalists’ attention a few days in advance of their publication. Little is known on how this early highlighting of certain research articles affects their later citations or altmetrics. We present an exploratory case study with the aim of assessing the effects of such promotion activities on scientific articles’ bibliometric and altmetric indicators. In a treatment–control design, we analyze citation counts and eight types of altmetrics of 715 articles published between 2016 and 2017 whose DOIs have been mentioned in embargo e-mails and compare these to articles from the same journal issues that have not been highlighted in embargo e-mails. Descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney-U tests reveal significant advantages for promoted articles across all regarded metrics three to four years after their publication. Particularly large differences can be seen regarding numbers of mentions in mainstream media, in blogs, on Twitter, and on Facebook. Our findings suggest that scholarly publishers exert significant influence over which research articles will receive attention and visibility in various (social) media. Also, regarding utilizations of metrics for evaluative purposes, the observed effects of promotional activities on indicators might constitute a factor of undesirable influence that currently does not receive the amount of consideration in scientometric assessments that it should receive.

Personalized Cancer Medicine in the Media: Sensationalism or Realistic Reporting?

BACKGROUND

Given that media coverage can shape healthcare expectations, it is essential that we understand how the media frames "personalized medicine" (PM) in oncology, and whether information about unproven technologies is widely disseminated.

METHODS

We conducted a content analysis of 396 news reports related to cancer and PM published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2011. Two coders independently coded all the reports using a pre-defined framework. Determination of coverage of "standard" and "non-standard" therapies and tests was made by comparing the media print/broadcast date to the date of Federal Drug Administration approval or incorporation into clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Although the term "personalized medicine" appeared in all reports, it was clearly defined only 27% of the time. Stories more frequently reported PM benefits than challenges (96% vs. 48%, p < 0.001). Commonly reported benefits included improved treatment (89%), prediction of side effects (30%), disease risk prediction (33%), and lower cost (19%). Commonly reported challenges included high cost (28%), potential for discrimination (29%), and concerns over privacy and regulation (21%). Coverage of inherited DNA testing was more common than coverage of tumor testing (79% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). Media reports of standard tests and treatments were common; however, 8% included information about non-standard technologies, such as experimental medications and gene therapy.

CONCLUSION

Confusion about personalized cancer medicine may be exacerbated by media reports that fail to clearly define the term. While most media stories reported on standard tests and treatments, an emphasis on the benefits of PM may lead to unrealistic expectations for cancer genomic care.

Misrepresentation of mild traumatic brain injury research in press releases

BACKGROUND

Press releases from academic medical centers often form the basis for health and science news stories. Press release coverage of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) research has not been formally appraised in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic content analysis of mTBI-based press releases.

DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

SETTING

EurekAlert! (eurekalert.org), the main distribution engine for scientific press releases.

PARTICIPANTS

Press releases indexed between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019 containing a minimum of 150 words.

INTERVENTIONS

Preestablished, investigator-generated criteria delineating aspects of misinformation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Press releases were evaluated for manifestations of "spin," including misleading title, misleading reporting, misleading claims, and inappropriate extrapolation.

RESULTS

Our database search yielded 125 entries within the specified time period. Of these, 66 met inclusion criteria. Fifty-five of 66 (83%) press releases exhibited at least one manifestation of spin. We identified 38 (58%) with misleading titles, 49 (74%) with misleading reporting, 44 (67%) with misleading claims, and 38 (58%) with inappropriate extrapolation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed a high degree of spin in recent press releases dedicated to mTBI research. The reports often overstated the strengths and practical impact of the study, publicize substandard research without clinical relevance, while downplaying or failing to report limitations and caveats. Misrepresentation in press releases can affect real-life medical decisions and outcomes.

What's not in the news headlines or titles of Alzheimer disease articles? #InMice

There is increasing scrutiny around how science is communicated to the public. For instance, a Twitter account @justsaysinmice (with 70.4K followers in January 2021) was created to call attention to news headlines that omit that mice, not humans, are the ones for whom the study findings apply. This is the case of many headlines reporting on Alzheimer disease (AD) research. AD is characterized by a degeneration of the human brain, loss of cognition, and behavioral changes, for which no treatment is available. Around 200 rodent models have been developed to study AD, even though AD is an exclusively human condition that does not occur naturally in other species and appears impervious to reproduction in artificial animal models, an information not always disclosed. It is not known what prompts writers of news stories to either omit or acknowledge, in the story's headlines, that the study was done in mice and not in humans. Here, we raised the hypothesis that how science is reported by scientists plays a role on the news reporting. To test this hypothesis, we investigated whether an association exists between articles' titles and news' headlines regarding the omission, or not, of mice. To this end, we analyzed a sample of 623 open-access scientific papers indexed in PubMed in 2018 and 2019 that used mice either as models or as the biological source for experimental studies in AD research. We found a significant association (p < 0.01) between articles' titles and news stories' headlines, revealing that when authors omit the species in the paper's title, writers of news stories tend to follow suit. We also found that papers not mentioning mice in their titles are more newsworthy and significantly more tweeted than papers that do. Our study shows that science reporting may affect media reporting and asks for changes in the way we report about findings obtained with animal models used to study human diseases.

Misinformation in and about science

Humans learn about the world by collectively acquiring information, filtering it, and sharing what we know. Misinformation undermines this process. The repercussions are extensive. Without reliable and accurate sources of information, we cannot hope to halt climate change, make reasoned democratic decisions, or control a global pandemic. Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems-from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles. In this perspective, we highlight these parallels and discuss future research directions and interventions.

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed.

What cancer research makes the news? A quantitative analysis of online news stories that mention cancer studies

Journalists’ health and science reporting aid the public’s direct access to research through the inclusion of hyperlinks leading to original studies in peer-reviewed journals. While this effort supports the US-government mandate that research be made widely available, little is known about what research journalists share with the public. This cross-sectional exploratory study characterises US-government-funded research on cancer that appeared most frequently in news coverage and how that coverage varied by cancer type, disease incidence and mortality rates. The subject of analysis was 11436 research articles (published in 2016) on cancer funded by the US government and 642 news stories mentioning at least one of these articles. Based on Altmetric data, researchers identified articles via PubMed and characterised each based on the news media attention received online. Only 1.88% (n = 213) of research articles mentioning US government-funded cancer research included at least one mention in an online news publication. This is in contrast to previous research that found 16.8% (n = 1925) of articles received mention by online mass media publications. Of the 13 most common cancers in the US, 12 were the subject of at least one news mention; only urinary and bladder cancer received no mention. Traditional news sources included significantly more mentions of research on common cancers than digital native news sources. However, a general discrepancy exists between cancers prominent in news sources and those with the highest mortality rate. For instance, lung cancer accounted for the most deaths annually, while melanoma led to 56% less annual deaths; however, journalists cited research regarding these cancers nearly equally. Additionally, breast cancer received the greatest coverage per estimated annual death, while pancreatic cancer received the least coverage per death. Findings demonstrated a continued misalignment between prevalent cancers and cancers mentioned in online news media. Additionally, cancer control and prevention received less coverage from journalists than other cancer continuum stages, highlighting a continued underrepresentation of prevention-focused research. Results revealed a need for further scholarship regarding the role of journalists in research dissemination.

Disclosure of study funding and author conflicts of interest in press releases and the news: a retrospective content analysis with two cohorts

OBJECTIVES

To examine how often study funding and author conflicts of interest are stated in science and health press releases and in corresponding news; and whether disclosure in press releases is associated with disclosure in news. Second, to specifically examine disclosure rates in industry-funded studies.

DESIGN

Retrospective content analysis with two cohorts.

SETTING

Press releases about health, psychology or neuroscience research from research universities and journals from 2011 (n=996) and 2015 (n=254) and their associated news stories (n=1250 and 578).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Mention of study funding and author conflicts of interest.

RESULTS

In our 2011 cohort, funding was reported in 94% (934/996) of journal articles, 29% (284/996) of press releases and 9% (112/1250) of news. The corresponding figures for 2015 were: 84% (214/254), 52% (131/254) and 10% (58/578). A similar pattern was seen for the industry funding subset. If the press release reported study funding, news was more likely to: 22% if in the press release versus 7% if not in the press release (2011), relative risk (RR) 3.1 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.3); for 2015, corresponding figures were 16% versus 2%, RR 6.8 (95% CI 2.2 to 17). In journal articles, 27% and 22% reported a conflict of interest, while less than 2% of press releases or news ever mentioned these.

CONCLUSIONS

Press releases and associated news did not frequently state funding sources or conflicts of interest. Funding information in press releases was associated with such information in news. Given converging evidence that news draws on press release content, including statements of funding and conflicts of interest in press releases may lead to increased reporting in news.

Is the press properly presenting the epidemiological data on COVID-19? An analysis of newspapers from 25 countries

We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess how the top 3 highest circulation newspapers from 25 countries are comparing and presenting COVID-19 epidemiological data to their readers. Of 75 newspapers evaluated, 51(68%) presented at their websites at least one comparison of cases and/or deaths between regions of their country and/or between countries. Quality assessment of the comparisons showed that only a minority of newspapers adjusted the data for population size in case comparisons between regions (37.2%) and between countries (25.6%), and the same was true for death comparisons between regions (27.3%) and between countries (27%). Of those making comparisons, only 13.7% explained the difference in the interpretation of cases and deaths. Of 17 that presented a logarithmic curve, only 29.4% explained its meaning. Although the press plays a key role in conveying correct medical information to the general public, we identified inconsistencies in the reporting of COVID-19 epidemiological data.

Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps

In recent years there has been increasing awareness of problems that have undermined trust in medical research. This review outlines some of the most important issues including research culture, reporting biases, and statistical and methodological issues. It examines measures that have been instituted to address these problems and explores the success and limitations of these measures. The paper concludes by proposing three achievable actions which could be implemented to deliver significantly improved transparency and mitigation of bias. These measures are as follows: (1) mandatory registration of interests by those involved in research; (2) that journals support the ‘registered reports’ publication format; and (3) that comprehensive study documentation for all publicly funded research be made available on a World Health Organization research repository. We suggest that achieving such measures requires a broad-based campaign which mobilises public opinion. We invite readers to feedback on the proposed actions and to join us in calling for their implementation.

Radiology in the News: A Content Analysis of Radiology-Related Information Retrieved From Google Alerts

•

Google Alerts highlighted a diverse set of topics present in online media.

•

Most links were directly to non-radiology lay press, but <1% of links over the 6-month period sent the user directly to a primary peer-reviewed medical journal article.

•

The most common topics were market trends, promotional, COVID-19, and artificial intelligence.

Introduction

Radiology topics receive substantial online media attention, with prior studies focusing on social media platform coverage. We used Google Alerts, a content change detection and notification service, to prospectively analyze new radiology-related content appearing on the internet.

Materials and Methods

An automated notification was created on Google Alerts for the search term “radiology,” sending the user emails with up to 3 new links daily. All links from November 2019 through April 2020 were assessed by 2 of 3 independent raters using a coding system to classify the content source and primary topic of discussion. The top 5 primary topics were retrospectively evaluated to identify prevalent subcategories. Content viewing restrictions were documented.

Results

526 links were accessed. The majority (68%) of links were created by non-radiology lay press, followed by radiology-related lay press (28%), university-based publications (2%), and professional society websites (2%). The primary topic of these links most frequently related to market trends (28%), promotional material (20%), COVID-19 (13%), artificial intelligence (8%), and new technology or equipment (5%). 15% of links discussed a topic sourced from another article, such as a peer-reviewed journal, though only 2 linked directly to the journal itself. 8% of links had content viewing restrictions.

Conclusion

New radiology content was largely disseminated via non-radiology news sources; radiologists should therefore ensure their research and viewpoints are presented in these outlets. Google Alerts may be a useful tool to stay abreast of the most current public radiology subject matters, especially during these times of social isolation and rapidly evolving clinical practice.

Evaluation of "Spin" in the Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trial Reports in Cardiology

CONTEXT

The misrepresentation and distortion of research findings, known as "spin," has been shown to affect clinical decision making. Spin has been found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in various fields of medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the abstracts of RCTs found in the cardiology literature for spin.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed using a specific string of keywords to identify previously published articles documenting RCTs of cardiovascular treatments in humans. To be included, a cardiology trial had to randomize humans to an intervention, statistically compare 2 or more groups, and have a nonsignificant primary endpoint. Records were excluded if they did not meet these criteria. Data extraction was double-blinded and done using a pilot-tested Google Form. Items extracted from each trial included the title, journal, funding source, comparator arm, primary endpoint, statistical analysis of the primary endpoint, secondary endpoints, statistical analysis of secondary endpoints, and trial registration number (if reported). The 2 authors who screened records for inclusion were then asked whether spin was present in the abstract of the randomized trial. Spin in the title, abstract results, abstract conclusions, and selection of reported endpoints were considered.

RESULTS

Of the 651 PubMed citations retrieved by our search string, 194 RCTs with a clearly defined primary endpoint were identified. Of these 194 RCTs, 66 trials contained nonsignificant primary endpoints and were evaluated for spin. Of these trials, spin was identified in 18 of the 66 abstracts (27.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Spin was present in our sample of cardiology RCTs. Spin may influence clinical decision making by creating false impressions of the true validity of a drug or intervention.

A case study exploring associations between popular media attention of scientific research and scientific citations

The association between mention of scientific research in popular media (e.g., the mainstream media or social media platforms) and scientific impact (e.g., citations) has yet to be fully explored. The purpose of this study was to clarify this relationship, while accounting for some other factors that likely influence scientific impact (e.g., the reputations of the scientists conducting the research and academic journal in which the research was published). To accomplish this purpose, approximately 800 peer-reviewed articles describing original research were evaluated for scientific impact, popular media attention, and reputations of the scientists/authors and publication venue. A structural equation model was produced describing the relationship between non-scientific impact (popular media) and scientific impact (citations), while accounting for author/scientist and journal reputation. The resulting model revealed a strong association between the amount of popular media attention given to a scientific research project and corresponding publication and the number of times that publication is cited in peer-reviewed scientific literature. These results indicate that (1) peer-reviewed scientific publications receiving more attention in non-scientific media are more likely to be cited than scientific publications receiving less popular media attention, and (2) the non-scientific media is associated with the scientific agenda. These results may inform scientists who increasingly use popular media to inform the general public and scientists concerning their scientific work. These results might also inform administrators of higher education and research funding mechanisms, who base decisions partly on scientific impact.

Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Poor reporting in randomized clinical trial (RCT) abstracts reduces quality and misinforms readers. Spin, a biased presentation of findings, could frequently mislead clinicians to accept a clinical intervention despite non-significant primary outcome. Therefore, good reporting practices and absence of spin enhances research quality. We aim to assess the reporting quality and spin in abstracts of RCTs evaluating the effect of periodontal therapy on cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and 17 trial registration platforms were searched. Cohort, non-randomized, non-English studies, and pediatric studies were excluded. RCT abstracts were reviewed by 2 authors using the CONSORT for abstracts and spin checklists for data extraction. Cohen's Kappa statistic was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Data on the selected RCT publication metrics were collected. Descriptive analysis was performed with non-parametric methods. Correlation analysis between quality, spin and bibliometric parameters was conducted.

RESULTS

24 RCTs were selected for CONSORT analysis and 14 fulfilled the criteria for spin analysis. Several important RCT elements per CONSORT were neglected in the abstract including description of the study population (100%), explicitly stated primary outcome (87%), methods of randomization and blinding (100%), trial registration (87%). No RCT examined true outcomes (CVD events). A significant fraction of the abstracts appeared with at least one form of spin in the results and conclusions (86%) and claimed some treatment benefit in spite of non-significant primary outcome (64%). High-quality reporting had a significant positive correlation with reporting of trial registration (p = 0.04) and funding (p = 0.009). Spinning showed marginal negative correlation with reporting quality (p = 0.059).

CONCLUSION

Poor adherence to the CONSORT guidelines and high levels of data spin were found in abstracts of RCTs exploring the effects of periodontal therapy on CVD outcomes. Our findings indicate that journal editors and reviewers should consider strict adherence to proper reporting guidelines to improve reporting quality and reduce waste.

Media coverage of harm reduction, 2000-2016: A content analysis of tone, topics, and interventions in Canadian print news

BACKGROUND

Harm reduction interventions reduce mortality and morbidity for people who use drugs (PWUD), but are contentious and haphazardly implemented. This study describes volume and content of Canadian newspaper coverage of harm reduction produced from 2000 to 2016.

METHODS

Searches of 54 English-language newspapers identified 5681 texts, coded for type (news reports, opinion pieces), tone (positive, negative, or neutral/balanced coverage), topic (health, crime, social welfare, and political perspectives on harm reduction), and seven harm reduction interventions.

RESULTS

Volume of coverage doubled in 2008 (after removal of harm reduction from federal drug policy and legal challenges to Vancouver's supervised consumption program) and quadrupled in 2016 (tracking Canada's opioid emergency). Health perspectives on harm reduction were most common (39% of texts) while criminal perspectives were rare (3%). Negative coverage was over 10 times more common in opinion pieces (31%) compared to news reports (3%); this trend was more pronounced in British Columbia and Alberta, a region particularly affected by Canada's opioid emergency. Supervised drug consumption accounted for 49% of all newspaper coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Although federal policy support for harm reduction waxed and waned over 17 years, Canadian newspapers independently shaped public discourse, frequently characterizing harm reduction positively/neutrally and from a health perspective. However, issue framing and agenda setting was also evident: supervised drug consumption offered in a single Canadian city crowded out coverage of all other harm reduction services, except for naloxone. This narrow sense of 'newsworthiness' obscured public discourse on the full spectrum of evidence-based harm reduction services that could benefit PWUD.

Medicine and the media: Medical experts' problems and solutions while working with journalists

Medical experts are one of the main sources used by journalists in reporting on medical science. This study aims to 1) identify problems that medical experts encounter in contacts with the media representatives, 2) elucidate their attitudes about interactions with journalists and 3) reflect on solutions that could improve the quality of medical journalism. By using in-depth interviews, focus groups and a survey directed to 600 medical experts in 21 countries, this cohort study elucidates medical experts' experiences and views on participating in popular media. A strong interest in interacting with the media was identified among the experts, where nearly one fifth of the respondents in the survey claimed that they contacted the media more than 10 times per year. Six obstacles for improving the quality of medical reporting in the media were found: deadlines, headlines, choice of topic or angle, journalist's level of medical knowledge, differences in professional culture and colleagues' opinions. The main concern among experts was that short deadlines and exaggerated headlines could harm journalistic quality. It is possible that this is partly due to ongoing changes in the media landscape with many new platforms and less control functions. Nevertheless, for several reasons many experts have great interest in interacting with the media, something that could contribute to better communication and fewer misunderstandings. Our results highlight factors like expert networks, media training for scientists and regular meetings that may facilitate communication between medical experts and medical reporters.

The evaluation of mental disorders research reported in British and Irish newspapers between 2002 and 2013, and a comparison with the relative disease burdens and with research outputs in the two countries

Mental disorders are a major contributor to the disease burden in Europe. We studied how research on them was communicated to British and Irish newspaper readers through an analysis of stories in the Daily Mail (DML) and The Guardian (GDN) in the UK and the Irish Times (IET) in Ireland, in 2002-13, and whether the coverage reflected the relative burdens of mental disorders, or the amount of research, in the two countries. The cited papers were identified through the newspapers' archive or the Factiva database, and their details and those of the research they cited from the Web of Science, with 1,128 stories in total. Alzheimer's and other dementias was the leading UK press research topic, but depression was for Ireland. The countries whose research was most cited were the United States, followed by Canada and Europe, notably the UK and Ireland in their respective newspapers. Over 68% of the Irish research papers cited by IET were supported by the state, compared with only 38% of all Irish mental disorders research. The UK newspapers had many stories on lifestyle factors (DML) or drug treatments (GDN); IET gave more space to epidemiology. The UK papers gave little attention to non-drug treatments. Many stories quoted commentators, who in the UK were often charities, but the IET tended to use academics.

Radial and femoral access for interventional fellows performing diagnostic coronary angiographies: the LEARN-Cardiogroup II, a prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of radial and femoral access for coronary angiography performed by cardiology fellows remain to be evaluated.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective study, cardiology fellows selected the access site (among femoral, right and left radial artery) for coronary angiography. All bleeding events related to the access site and all complications (a composite of all bleedings and artery occlusion) were the co-primary safety end points. Success for each access site, procedural and radiological times and single components of primary outcome were the secondary ones.

RESULTS

Overall, 201 patients were enrolled. Fellows chose right radial, left radial or femoral access in 164 (82%), 20 (10%) and 17 (8%) cases, respectively. All-cause bleedings were lower in radial cohort (4 vs. 19%; P = 0.001) mainly driven by minor bleedings (4 vs. 18%, P = 0.012). Also, overall complications were less frequent with the radial approach (18 vs. 30%, P = 0.03) and radial artery occlusion did not differ between right vs. left side (4 vs. 5%, P = 0.76). Procedural time (minutes) was similar between radial and femoral site (23 ± 9 vs. 22 ± 10, P = 0.91), as well as time of X-ray exposure (6 ± 3 vs. 4 ± 2, P = 0.11), DAP (Gy/cm: 17 ± 11 vs. 18 ± 12, P = 0.74) and amount of contrast medium (ml: 106 ± 81 vs. 84 ± 43, P = 0.89). Success for access was significantly higher with radial artery (89 vs. 71%, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Radial artery is the most exploited access by cardiologist fellows, leading to reduction in minor bleedings and higher success compared with femoral access. No differences in procedural time and radiation exposures were recorded.

The contribution of Cyprus to non-communicable diseases and biomedical research from 2002 to 2013: implications for evidence-based health policy

BACKGROUND

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading causes of disease burden and mortality at the European level and in Cyprus. This research was conducted to map the research activities of Cypriot institutions in five NCDs, namely oncology, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, mental health and respiratory conditions.

METHODS

For the period 2002-2013, research in Cyprus was assessed on its biomedical outputs and compared to the rest of Europe relative to their GDP. The research output in the five NCDs was obtained and contrasted to their respective disease burdens. The results from each of the five NCDs showed the amount of cross-country collaboration with other researchers from other European countries and from the rest of the world, and the research level of the papers on a clinical to basic scale. For each NCD field the research application was assessed, whereas for oncology the research type was also assessed. Information was collected on the development of clinical guidelines, on Cypriot newspapers reporting on medical and policy documents and advisory committees' output as well as research and funding organisations available in Cyprus, for potential evaluation of impact in health policy on the five NCDs.

RESULTS

Cypriot biomedical research output appeared appropriate in volume compared with its wealth and the expected value from a regression line for other European countries. However, it was focused particularly on the molecular mechanisms of transmittable or hereditary diseases, rather than on the five NCDs. Cyprus performs well in palliative care, which receives funding from several local charities and other non-profit organisations. Cyprus has the highest relative burden from diabetes in Europe, but the subject is largely neglected by researchers. Similarly, it suffers more from mental disorders than most of the rest of Europe, but the amount of research is relatively small. Respiratory conditions research is under-funded and under-researched too.

CONCLUSIONS

The biomedical research portfolio in Cyprus is adequate in volume, but not well fitted to its pattern of disease. The means whereby research can be used to improve healthcare in the country are also unsatisfactory, although the Ministry of Health is now developing a comprehensive plan which will include the development of clinical guidelines and proposals for the evaluation of how healthcare is delivered on the island.

Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. However, publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from a straightforward analysis thereof. Authors have broad latitude when writing their reports and may be tempted to consciously or unconsciously "spin" their study findings. Spin has been defined as a specific intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the impression the results produce in readers. This article, based on a literature review, reports the various practices of spin from misreporting by "beautification" of methods to misreporting by misinterpreting the results. It provides data on the prevalence of some forms of spin in specific fields and the possible effects of some types of spin on readers' interpretation and research dissemination. We also discuss why researchers would spin their reports and possible ways to avoid it.

National citation patterns of NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA and The BMJ in the lay press: a quantitative content analysis

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the total number of newspaper articles citing the four leading general medical journals and to describe national citation patterns.

DESIGN

Quantitative content analysis.

SETTING/SAMPLE

Full text of 22 general newspapers in 14 countries over the period 2008-2015, collected from LexisNexis. The 14 countries have been categorised into four regions: the USA, the UK, Western World (European countries other than the UK, and Australia, New Zealand and Canada) and Rest of the World (other countries).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Press citations of four medical journals (two American: NEJM and JAMA; and two British: The Lancet and The BMJ) in 22 newspapers.

RESULTS

British and American newspapers cited some of the four analysed medical journals about three times a week in 2008-2015 (weekly mean 3.2 and 2.7 citations, respectively); the newspapers from other Western countries did so about once a week (weekly mean 1.1), and those from the Rest of the World cited them about once a month (monthly mean 1.1). The New York Times cited above all other newspapers (weekly mean 4.7). The analysis showed the existence of three national citation patterns in the daily press: American newspapers cited mostly American journals (70.0% of citations), British newspapers cited mostly British journals (86.5%) and the rest of the analysed press cited more British journals than American ones. The Lancet was the most cited journal in the press of almost all Western countries outside the USA and the UK. Multivariate correspondence analysis confirmed the national patterns and showed that over 85% of the citation data variability is retained in just one single new variable: the national dimension.

CONCLUSION

British and American newspapers are the ones that cite the four analysed medical journals more often, showing a domestic preference for their respective national journals; non-British and non-American newspapers show a common international citation pattern.

Cover stories: An emerging aesthetic of prestige science

Our statistical analysis of research publications in the prestigious scientific journals Nature, Science and Cell reveals that papers represented by an image on the journal's cover gain many more citations in the academic literature than those papers in the same journals that are not represented on the cover. Meanwhile, the number of images used by high-prestige journals is much higher than that used by journals in general, which indicates both the emergence of a new aesthetic of prestige scientific publication, and also that this aesthetic is relevant to journals' impact. Furthermore, there are significant differences in the use of images in different countries and in different disciplines.

Engaging rural Australian communities in National Science Week helps increase visibility for women researchers

During a week-long celebration of science, run under the federally supported National Science Week umbrella, the Catch a Rising Star: women in Queensland research (CaRS) programme flew scientists who identify as women to nine regional and remote communities in the Australian State of Queensland. The aim of the project was twofold: first, to bring science to remote and regional communities in a large, economically diverse state; and second, to determine whether media and public engagement provides career advancement opportunities for women scientists. This paper focuses on the latter goal. The data show: (i) a substantial majority (greater than 80%) of researchers thought the training and experience provided by the programme would help develop her career as a research scientist in the future, (ii) the majority (65%) thought the programme would help relate her research to end users, industry partners or stakeholders in the future, and (iii) analytics can help create a compelling narrative around engagement metrics and help to quantify influence. During the week-long project, scientists reached 600 000 impressions on one social media platform (Twitter) using a program hashtag. The breadth and depth of the project outcomes indicate funding bodies and employers could use similar data as an informative source of metrics to support hiring and promotion decisions. Although this project focused on researchers who identify as women, the lessons learned are applicable to researchers representing a diverse range of backgrounds. Future surveys will help determine whether the CaRS programme provided long-term career advantages to participating scientists and communities.

Institute for Scientific Information-indexed biomedical journals of Saudi Arabia. Their performance from 2007-2014

OBJECTIVES

To compare the journal impact factor (JIF) and Eigenfactor score (ES) of Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)-indexed biomedical journals published from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) over the last 8 years. Methods: This is a retrospective study, conducted at Alfaisal University, Riyadh, KSA from January to March 2016. The Journal Citation Reports of ISI Web of Knowledge were accessed, and 6 Saudi biomedical journals were included for analysis. Results: All Saudi journals have improved their IF compared with their baseline. However, the performance of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Neurosciences has been exceptionally good. The biggest improvement in percent growth in JIF was seen in the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal (approximately 887%) followed by Neurosciences (approximately 462%). Interestingly, the ES of all biomedical journals, except Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology and Saudi Medical Journal, increased over the years. The greatest growth in ES (more than 5 fold) was noted for Neurosciences and Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. Conclusion: This study shows that the overall quality of all Saudi biomedical journals has improved in the last 8 years.

Conflicts of interest and expertise of independent commenters in news stories about medical research

BACKGROUND

Media coverage of medical research influences the views and behaviours of clinicians, scientists and members of the public. We examined how frequently commenters in news stories about medical research have relevant expertise and have academic and financial conflicts, how often such conflicts are reported and whether there are associations between the conflicts and the disposition of the comments toward the findings of the source research.

METHODS

We analyzed 104 independent comments in news stories on original clinical research published in high-impact medical journals from Jan. 1 to Mar. 31, 2013, and 21 related journal editorials. Main outcomes were prevalence of relevant academic and clinical expertise, prevalence and reporting of academic and financial conflicts of interest, and disposition of comments toward study findings.

RESULTS

Only 1 in 6 news stories included independent comments. Overall, 25% of commenters and 0% of editorialists had neither relevant academic nor clinical expertise (p = 0.007). Among the 104 comments, an academic conflict of interest was present for 56 (54%), of which 25 (45%) were reported in the news stories. A financial conflict of interest was present for 33 (32%) of the comments, of which 11 (33%) were reported. When commenters' conflicts of interest were congruent with the findings of the source research, 97% and 93% of comments associated with academic and financial conflicts of interest, respectively, were favourably disposed toward the research. These values were 16% and 17%, respectively, when the conflicts of interest were not congruent with the research findings.

INTERPRETATION

Independent commenters in new stories about medical research may lack relevant academic or clinical expertise. Academic or financial conflicts of interest were frequently present among independent commenters but infrequently reported, and were often associated with the disposition of comments about the source research.

Using media to impact health policy-making: an integrative systematic review

Introduction

Media interventions can potentially play a major role in influencing health policies. This integrative systematic review aimed to assess the effects of planned media interventions—including social media—on the health policy-making process.

Methods

Eligible study designs included randomized and non-randomized designs, economic studies, process evaluation studies, stakeholder analyses, qualitative methods, and case studies. We electronically searched Medline, EMBASE, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the WHO Global Health Library. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment.

Results

Twenty-one studies met our eligibility criteria: 10 evaluation studies using either quantitative (n = 7) or qualitative (n = 3) designs and 11 case studies. None of the evaluation studies were on social media. The findings of the evaluation studies suggest that media interventions may have a positive impact when used as accountability tools leading to prioritizing and initiating policy discussions, as tools to increase policymakers’ awareness, as tools to influence policy formulation, as awareness tools leading to policy adoption, and as awareness tools to improve compliance with laws and regulations. In one study, media-generated attention had a negative effect on policy advocacy as it mobilized opponents who defeated the passage of the bills that the media intervention advocated for. We judged the confidence in the available evidence as limited due to the risk of bias in the included studies and the indirectness of the evidence.

Conclusion

There is currently a lack of reliable evidence to guide decisions on the use of media interventions to influence health policy-making. Additional and better-designed, conducted, and reported primary research is needed to better understand the effects of media interventions, particularly social media, on health policy-making processes, and the circumstances under which media interventions are successful.

Trial registration

PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015020243

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0581-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.