Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 543–545 | Cite as

Could Media Reports Include a Standardized Scale for Quality of Evidence?

Perspectives

Abstract

While some media reports offer accurate interpretations of clinical research, other reports are misleading. The uneven accuracy of medical reporting may act in concert with its sheer volume to confuse the lay public about which health messages are most important and evidence-based. I outline one possible step towards a solution: medical journals can embed quality of evidence ratings in article summaries and create incentives for inclusion of these ratings in lay media reports.

KEY WORDS

health care journalism medical journalism media news quality of evidence 

References

  1. 1.
    Health News Review—Holding health and medical journalism accountable. Available at: www.healthnewsreview.org. Accessed November 22, 2010.
  2. 2.
    Dentzer S. Communicating medical news–pitfalls of health care journalism. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson A, Bonevski B, Jones A, Henry D. Media reporting of health interventions: signs of improvement, but major problems persist. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e4831.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonevski B, Wilson A, Henry DA. An analysis of news media coverage of complementary and alternative medicine. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e2406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holtzman NA, Bernhardt BA, Mountcastle-Shah E, Rodgers JE, Tambor E, Geller G. The quality of media reports on discoveries related to human genetic diseases. Community Genet. 2005;8:133–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacKenzie R, Chapman S, Barratt A, Holding S. "The news is [not] all good": misrepresentations and inaccuracies in Australian news media reports on prostate cancer screening. Med J Aust. 2007;187:507–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwitzer G. A statement of principles for health care journalists. Am J Bioeth. 2004;4:W9–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barton MB, Miller T, Wolff T, et al. How to read the new recommendation statement: methods update from the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:123–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braithwaite RS, Roberts MS, Justice AC. Incorporating quality of evidence into decision analytic modeling. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:133–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Committee for Quality Assurance. Available at: http://reportcard.ncqa.org/plan/external/Plansearch.aspx. Accessed November 22, 2010.
  11. 11.
    Kolata G. Years later, no magic bullet against Alzheimer's Disease. New York Times August 29, 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:516–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anonymous. Does the media support or sabotage health? Lancet 2009;373:604.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA. 2002;287:2856–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Value and Comparative Effectiveness, Division of General Internal MedicineNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations