Article

Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study.

INSERM, U738, Paris, France
PLoS Medicine (Impact Factor: 14). 09/2012; 9(9):e1001308. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous studies indicate that in published reports, trial results can be distorted by the use of "spin" (specific reporting strategies, intentional or unintentional, emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment). We aimed to (1) evaluate the presence of "spin" in press releases and associated media coverage; and (2) evaluate whether findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on press releases and media coverage are misinterpreted.
We systematically searched for all press releases indexed in the EurekAlert! database between December 2009 and March 2010. Of the 498 press releases retrieved and screened, we included press releases for all two-arm, parallel-group RCTs (n = 70). We obtained a copy of the scientific article to which the press release related and we systematically searched for related news items using Lexis Nexis. "Spin," defined as specific reporting strategies (intentional or unintentional) emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment, was identified in 28 (40%) scientific article abstract conclusions and in 33 (47%) press releases. From bivariate and multivariable analysis assessing the journal type, funding source, sample size, type of treatment (drug or other), results of the primary outcomes (all nonstatistically significant versus other), author of the press release, and the presence of "spin" in the abstract conclusion, the only factor associated, with "spin" in the press release was "spin" in the article abstract conclusions (relative risk [RR] 5.6, [95% CI 2.8-11.1], p<0.001). Findings of RCTs based on press releases were overestimated for 19 (27%) reports. News items were identified for 41 RCTs; 21 (51%) were reported with "spin," mainly the same type of "spin" as those identified in the press release and article abstract conclusion. Findings of RCTs based on the news item was overestimated for ten (24%) reports.
"Spin" was identified in about half of press releases and media coverage. In multivariable analysis, the main factor associated with "spin" in press releases was the presence of "spin" in the article abstract conclusion.

1 Follower
 · 
198 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify the source (press releases or news) of distortions, exaggerations, or changes to the main conclusions drawn from research that could potentially influence a reader's health related behaviour. Retrospective quantitative content analysis. Journal articles, press releases, and related news, with accompanying simulations. Press releases (n=462) on biomedical and health related science issued by 20 leading UK universities in 2011, alongside their associated peer reviewed research papers and news stories (n=668). Advice to readers to change behaviour, causal statements drawn from correlational research, and inference to humans from animal research that went beyond those in the associated peer reviewed papers. 40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research. When press releases contained such exaggeration, 58% (95% confidence interval 48% to 68%), 81% (70% to 93%), and 86% (77% to 95%) of news stories, respectively, contained similar exaggeration, compared with exaggeration rates of 17% (10% to 24%), 18% (9% to 27%), and 10% (0% to 19%) in news when the press releases were not exaggerated. Odds ratios for each category of analysis were 6.5 (95% confidence interval 3.5 to 12), 20 (7.6 to 51), and 56 (15 to 211). At the same time, there was little evidence that exaggeration in press releases increased the uptake of news. Exaggeration in news is strongly associated with exaggeration in press releases. Improving the accuracy of academic press releases could represent a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news. © Sumner et al 2014.
    BMJ British medical journal 12/2014; 349(g7015). DOI:10.1136/bmj.g7015 · 16.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuroscience research on sex difference is currently a controversial field, frequently accused of purveying a 'neurosexism' that functions to naturalise gender inequalities. However, there has been little empirical investigation of how information about neurobiological sex difference is interpreted within wider society. This paper presents a case study that tracks the journey of one high-profile study of neurobiological sex differences from its scientific publication through various layers of the public domain. A content analysis was performed to ascertain how the study was represented in five domains of communication: the original scientific article, a press release, the traditional news media, online reader comments and blog entries. Analysis suggested that scientific research on sex difference offers an opportunity to rehearse abiding cultural understandings of gender. In both scientific and popular contexts, traditional gender stereotypes were projected onto the novel scientific information, which was harnessed to demonstrate the factual truth and normative legitimacy of these beliefs. Though strains of misogyny were evident within the readers' comments, most discussion of the study took pains to portray the sexes' unique abilities as equal and 'complementary'. However, this content often resembled a form of benevolent sexism, in which praise of women's social-emotional skills compensated for their relegation from more esteemed trait-domains, such as rationality and productivity. The paper suggests that embedding these stereotype patterns in neuroscience may intensify their rhetorical potency by lending them the epistemic authority of science. It argues that the neuroscience of sex difference does not merely reflect, but can actively shape the gender norms of contemporary society.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e110830. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110830 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recognition of the unreliability of findings in the biomedical literature, and especially pharmaceutical trials has led to a number of reforms. These include reporting preregistration of protocols for clinical trials and meta-analysis, reporting standards and making data available to others for all clinical trials, as well as recognition of the influence of conflicts of interest. These improvements are only partially and inconsistently reflected in the literature evaluating psychotherapies. The psychotherapy literature is currently of too poor quality to provide a reliable guide to clinicians, consumers, and policymakers. The literature is dominated by underpowered trials with high risk of bias producing positive effects at a statistically improbable rate. Meta-analyses that are poorly conducted with undisclosed conflicts of interest compound these problems. A number of reforms are proposed. These include accelerating adoption of those already occurring in the pharmaceutical literature. Additionally, psychotherapy research should parallel the orderly sequence of treatment development seen in the pharmaceutical literature. Phase III trials providing the effect sizes of treatments should not be conducted until the acceptability of treatment and the feasibility of accruing sufficient numbers of patients are established. The role of investigator allegiance as a potential and potent source of conflict of interest needs to be recognized. Yet, enforcement of existing standards could counter many of the deficiencies of the current literature, but such enforcement may only come with pressures emanating from outside the field of psychotherapy.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
53 Downloads
Available from
May 31, 2014