[PHNUTR-L] Important study facts often missing in media reports about medical research

[Kathrynne Holden, MS, RD]

Colleagues, the following is FYI and does not necessarily reflect my own
opinion. I have no further knowledge of the topic. If you do not wish to
receive these posts, set your email filter to filter out any messages
coming from   @nutritionucanlivewith.com    and the program will remove
anything coming from me.
---------------------------------------------------------
Public release date: 8-Jun-2006
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/dms-isf060806.php

Contact: Dr. Lisa Schwartz
lisa.schwartz at dartmouth.edu
802-296-5178
Dartmouth Medical School

Important study facts often missing in media reports about medical research

WHITE RIVER JUNCTION, VT/HANOVER, NH -- News stories about medical 
research, often based on initial findings presented at professional 
conferences, frequently omit basic facts about the study and fail to 
highlight important limitations, warn Dartmouth researchers in the 
latest issue of the Medical Journal of Australia. Such omissions can 
mislead the public and distort the actual significance of the research, 
they caution.

Dr. Lisa Schwartz and Dr. Steven Woloshin, both Associate Professors of 
Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School (Hanover, New Hampshire) and at the 
VA Outcomes Group (White River Junction, Vermont), writing in the June 
4, 2006 issue of MJA, studied media coverage of research presented at 
scientific meetings.

"Scientific meetings are an important forum for researchers to exchange 
ideas and present work in progress. But much of the work presented is 
not ready for public consumption," said Schwartz. "The studies have 
undergone limited review and findings may change substantially by the 
time the final report is published in a medical journal." And, she 
noted, "Some meeting presentations are never published at all."

Nonetheless, scientific meeting research receives extensive news media 
coverage. "Unless journalists are careful to provide basic study facts 
and highlight limitations the public may be misled about the meaning, 
importance and validity of the research", said Woloshin. For their 
study, the team analyzed newspaper, TV and radio stories that appeared 
in the US for research reports from five major scientific meetings in 
2002 and 2003 to see if basic study facts (eg., size, design) were 
reported; whether cautions about inherent study weaknesses were noted; 
and if the news stories were clear about the preliminary stage of the 
research.

The researchers found that basic study facts were often missing. For 
example, a third of reports failed to mention study size; 40% did not 
quantify the main result at all.

Important study limitations were often missing. For example, only 6% 
(1/17) of the news stories about animal studies noted that results might 
not apply to humans. And only 2 of 175 stories about unpublished studies 
noted that the study was unpublished. Schwartz and Woloshin, who 
frequently present to the media on how to understand and accurately 
report research results, say that while reporters can and should do 
better, another reason for misinterpreted or "over-hyped" research is 
its early release at professional meetings that reporters are encouraged 
to attend.

"It is not hard to understand why research presented at scientific 
meetings garners extensive media attention," they write. "Researchers 
benefit from the attention because it is a mark of academic success, 
their academic affiliates benefit because good publicity attracts 
patients and donors, and research funders – public and private – benefit 
when they can show a good return on their investments. The meeting 
organizers benefit too; extensive media coverage attracts more 
advertisers, and higher profile scientists for the following year, 
guaranteeing more dramatic reports and ultimately more press."

Moreover, they note, "the public has a strong appetite for medical news 
and scientific meetings provide the media with an easy source of 
provocative material."

Given the reality that a decrease in media coverage of scientific 
meetings is not likely, the authors urge reporters and editors to make 
sure their stories include three things: (1) basic study facts: what 
kind of study was done, how many subjects were included, what was the 
main result; (2) cautions about study designs with intrinsic 
limitations; and (3) clear statements about the preliminary stage of the 
work under discussion.
-- 
Kathrynne Holden, MS, RD < fivestar at nutritionucanlivewith.com >
"Ask the Parkinson Dietitian"  http://www.parkinson.org/
"Eat well, stay well with Parkinson's disease"
"Parkinson's disease: Guidelines for Medical Nutrition Therapy"
http://www.nutritionucanlivewith.com/