Special Article
Coverage by the News Media of the Benefits and Risks of Medications
N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1645-1650June 1, 2000
- Abstract
Background
The news media are an important source of information about new medical treatments, but there is concern that some coverage may be inaccurate and overly enthusiastic.
Methods
We studied coverage by U.S. news media of the benefits and risks of three medications that are used to prevent major diseases. The medications were pravastatin, a cholesterol-lowering drug for the prevention of cardiovascular disease; alendronate, a bisphosphonate for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis; and aspirin, which is used for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We analyzed a systematic probability sample of 180 newspaper articles (60 for each drug) and 27 television reports that appeared between 1994 and 1998.
Results
Of the 207 stories, 83 (40 percent) did not report benefits quantitatively. Of the 124 that did, 103 (83 percent) reported relative benefits only, 3 (2 percent) absolute benefits only, and 18 (15 percent) both absolute and relative benefits. Of the 207 stories, 98 (47 percent) mentioned potential harm to patients, and only 63 (30 percent) mentioned costs. Of the 170 stories citing an expert or a scientific study, 85 (50 percent) cited at least one expert or study with a financial tie to a manufacturer of the drug that had been disclosed in the scientific literature. These ties were disclosed in only 33 (39 percent) of the 85 stories.
Conclusions
News-media stories about medications may include inadequate or incomplete information about the benefits, risks, and costs of the drugs as well as the financial ties between study groups or experts and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Media in This Article
Table 1
Characteristics of the 207 Stories in the News Media.Table 2
Quantification of Benefits, Coverage of Adverse Effects and Costs, and Disclosure of Ties with Industry in Media Stories, According to Drug.Article Activity
- Article
The news media are an important source of information about health and medical therapies,1 and there is widespread interest in the quality of reporting.2-10 Previous studies have identified inaccurate coverage of published scientific papers,11,12 overstatement of adverse effects or risks,13,14 and evidence of sensationalism.15,16 The media can also have a positive public health role, as they did in communicating simple warnings about the connection between Reye's syndrome and the use of aspirin in children.17
Physicians, consumers, and third-party payers may be more enthusiastic about long-term preventive treatments when benefits are stated as relative, rather than absolute, reductions in the risk of adverse events.18-22 Medical-journal editors have said that reporting only relative reductions in risk is usually inadequate in scientific articles and have urged the news media to consider the importance of discussing both absolute and relative risks.3,23 For example, a story reporting that in patients with myocardial infarction, a new drug reduces the mortality rate at two years from 10 percent to 7 percent may help patients weigh both the 3 percent absolute and the 30 percent relative reduction in risk against the costs of the drug and its side effects.
Other issues are whether news stories cover potential adverse effects as well as benefits24 and whether stories report on the ties of cited experts or study groups to industry.25 Because evidence suggests that commercial funding may sometimes be associated with study outcomes that are more favorable to sponsors' products, disclosure of such funding in media stories, as is done in a number of major peer-reviewed journals, may be desirable.26-28
We studied news stories about three medications that are used for the prevention of major diseases. We examined whether benefits were stated in relative or absolute terms, whether potential harm and costs were discussed, and whether ties of cited experts or study groups to industry were included.
Methods
Study Drugs
We studied coverage of three medications with important preventive benefits and potentially large markets that have attracted considerable media attention: two relatively new patented drugs (pravastatin [Pravachol, Bristol-Myers Squibb], a cholesterol-lowering drug for the prevention of cardiovascular disease that was released in 1991, and alendronate [Fosamax, Merck], a bisphosphonate for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis that was released in 1995) and an older, off-patent drug (aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease).
We focused on preventive medications, since there is evidence (particularly for cholesterol-lowering drugs) that when event rates are low for untreated persons and treatment is long-term, the way treatment benefits are presented can affect the enthusiasm of patients and clinicians for therapy.18 Gastrointestinal side effects can occur after the use of aspirin and alendronate29,30; pravastatin is considered to have a relatively low rate of adverse effects, although it may share the tendency of other statins to induce liver and muscle abnormalities in rare cases.31
Selection of News Stories
We searched the Lexis–Nexis data base to obtain stories from 36 U.S. newspapers, including both large-circulation national papers and regional papers, between 1994 and 1998. The key words used in the search strategy were “osteoporosis” and additional terms “alendronate or Fosamax” for alendronate; “cholesterol” and additional terms “pravastatin or Pravachol” for pravastatin; and “heart” and “aspirin” for aspirin. We identified 196 candidate stories on alendronate, 119 on pravastatin, and 275 on aspirin.
A systematic probability sample of 60 newspaper stories for each drug32 was obtained from the complete list of stories on each drug, ordered according to date and divided into 60 equal-sized blocks. Using a random starting point in each block, we reviewed the stories for content, excluding each story that met the exclusion criteria listed below and substituting the next story from the block. In this way, 401 newspaper stories were reviewed and 180 of them were included in the study.
The Vanderbilt Television News Archive Evening News data base was used to obtain videotaped stories on ABC, CBS, and NBC nightly network news and CNN about the three drugs between 1994 and 1998. Search strategies similar to those used for newspaper articles were employed. Ninety television stories were identified and reviewed, of which 27 were included (10 on alendronate, 10 on pravastatin, and 7 on aspirin).
Newspaper and television stories were excluded if they emphasized another topic, with only a brief mention of the study drug (146 stories); were in a “question and answer” or “Dear Doctor” format (37 stories); dealt solely with business issues (17 stories); concerned indications other than those listed (12 stories); were letters to the editor or corrections, or lacked sufficient information (17 stories); or did not cover the study drug at all (55 stories; e.g., stories on “super aspirin” referring to other antiplatelet drugs). Stories in different newspapers that were based on the same wire-service report accounted for 14 percent of the sample.
Measures
We used an abstraction form to collect information from the stories. The form consisted largely of simple dichotomous (yes or no) items so as to limit subjective judgments by coders. The key items extracted were whether benefits were reported quantitatively; whether benefits were stated in relative terms (e.g., a “halving” of the risk of fracture) or absolute terms (e.g., a reduction in the rate of fracture by 1 percent or the need to treat 100 people to prevent 1 fracture); whether the presence or absence of adverse effects (potential harm) was mentioned; and whether costs were mentioned. Stories that gave the event rates in treatment and control groups, permitting both absolute and relative changes to be derived, were categorized as reporting both absolute and relative benefits (e.g., a reduction in the risk of nonfatal heart attack from 6 percent to 4 percent). The coders also listed the experts and studies cited in each story.
We then searched Medline (for the years 1991 through 1999) for the published scientific literature referred to in the media stories and for other studies by the experts cited (identified by a search for names). By reading the retrieved articles, including the acknowledgments, we determined whether the experts had financial ties to manufacturers and whether the studies had been supported primarily by the manufacturer of the drug that was the focus of the story. We then determined whether the news stories included any information about the financial ties disclosed in the scientific literature.
Data Collection
Newspapers' names and bylines were removed from printed copies of the Lexis–Nexis stories. Masked versions were coded independently by two coders trained in the use of the form, working according to an instruction manual, and blinded to the results until all data collection was complete. (Full-text versions of articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Miami Herald were not available through Lexis–Nexis. They were obtained from a library and could not be masked.) Television stories were transcribed by an independent transcription service; the coders reviewed both the videotapes and the written transcripts, using the same form. All disagreements were resolved by two of the authors independently of the coders. The rates of agreement between coders on dichotomous variables were generally high: whether benefits were quantified in the story (95 percent observed agreement, kappa=0.89), whether relative benefits were given (95 percent observed agreement, kappa=0.90), and mention of costs (94 percent observed agreement, kappa=0.87) and potential harm (96 percent observed agreement, kappa=0.90). Decisions were more difficult in the few instances in which absolute benefit was reported; interrater agreement was 95 percent, but the kappa statistic was lower (0.59).
Statistical Analysis
We derived proportions of reports and their exact binomial 95 percent confidence intervals for each of the outcomes.32 These estimates are based on the assumption that each report was independent (i.e., there was no correlation between stories from the same media outlet). We attempted to adjust for possible effects of clustering by using a variance-inflation factor based on the average cluster size and intracluster correlation.33 We found that the intracluster correlation was negligible for most subgroups and for most outcomes. Hence, we present only confidence intervals derived from this approach when the variance-inflation factor altered the 95 percent confidence interval. To test whether there were significant differences in reporting styles among different media, chi-square statistics and odds ratios and their confidence intervals were computed by a generalized estimating approach.34 All P values are two-tailed.
Results
The characteristics of the stories are described in Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of the 207 Stories in the News Media.. Two hundred seven stories released by 40 media outlets (36 newspapers and 4 television networks) were included. Of all stories, 27 (13 percent) were reported by the television networks, 53 (26 percent) by leading national newspapers, and 127 (61 percent) by other newspapers. The stories were well distributed with respect to drugs, years, and regions.Quantification of Benefits
Eighty-three of the 207 stories (40 percent) did not report benefits quantitatively (Table 2Table 2
Quantification of Benefits, Coverage of Adverse Effects and Costs, and Disclosure of Ties with Industry in Media Stories, According to Drug.). Of the 124 stories that quantified benefits, 103 (83 percent) reported only relative benefits, 18 (15 percent) reported both absolute and relative benefits, and 3 (2 percent) reported only absolute benefits. All three stories reporting only absolute benefits were about aspirin.Coverage of Adverse Effects and Costs
Of the 207 stories, 98 (47 percent) mentioned potential harm, and only 63 (30 percent) mentioned the costs of therapy (Table 2). The likelihood that a story would mention possible adverse effects or costs was not affected by whether it appeared on television, in a leading national newspaper, or in another newspaper (P=0.93 for adverse effects and P=0.51 for costs) (Table 3Table 3
Quantification of Benefits, Coverage of Adverse Effects and Costs, and Disclosure of Ties with Industry in Media Stories, According to Type of Medium.).Coverage of Ties with Industry
Of the 170 stories citing an expert or a scientific study, 85 (50 percent) cited at least one with an industrial tie disclosed in the scientific literature (Table 2); in 33 of these 85 stories (39 percent), the tie with industry was mentioned. The majority of these stories cited both experts and study groups with ties.
An Example
An example may help to illustrate our findings. On the evening of May 22, 1996, ABC, NBC, and CBS television news broadcast stories about alendronate,35-37 sparked by a conference at which the results of an important randomized, controlled trial were reported. All three stories gave only the relative reduction in risk, stating that the new osteoporosis drug could reduce the incidence of hip fractures by 50 percent, or one half. The CBS reporter described these results as “almost miraculous.”37 None of the stories cited actual event rates in treated patients (1 percent) and untreated patients (2 percent); only one mentioned gastrointestinal distress as a potential adverse effect37; and no story disclosed that the study investigator being interviewed had received funding for the study from the drug manufacturer.
Discussion
Our evaluation of 207 newspaper and television stories on three drugs used for disease prevention showed substantial shortcomings in journalistic practices. Of stories quantifying the benefits of medications, only 15 percent presented both relative and absolute benefits. Eighty-three percent presented information on benefits in relative terms only — an approach that has been shown to increase the enthusiasm of doctors and patients for long-term preventive treatments and that could be viewed as potentially misleading.18,20,38
In general, giving only the absolute or only the relative benefits does not tell the full story; it is more informative if both researchers and the media make data available in both absolute and relative terms. For individual decisions about long-term preventive therapies, consumers need information to weigh the probability of benefit and harm; in such cases it seems desirable for media stories to include actual event rates with and without treatment.
In the case of public health interventions, such as vaccination, the use of seat belts, or prevention of Reye's syndrome by avoidance of aspirin use, it is difficult to impart effective messages by reporting only on absolute reductions in risk, which would tend to minimize important population-wide benefits. In such cases, media reports might emphasize the relative benefits.
Fifty-three percent of the stories in our study did not include information about potential harms, which is a matter for concern, given the study drugs' associations with a range of adverse effects.29-31 The finding that 70 percent of stories made no mention of cost is also important, since cost effectiveness is increasingly considered an important factor in medical advances. For the two prescription drugs, a majority of the stories citing a study group or an expert with a link to the drug manufacturer failed to mention that link, despite the current emphasis on disclosure of such links in the scientific literature.39
There are several important limitations to the generalizability of our findings. First, these study drugs are not a representative sample. All three can be used as preventive therapies, for which benefits are readily framed in relative or absolute terms. For other therapies and conditions (e.g., Alzheimer's disease), more complex approaches would be required for reliable measurement of media coverage of benefits.40
Second, the coverage of the three study drugs was overwhelmingly positive and focused mainly on benefits, thus limiting the relevance of our findings to negative coverage, in which the risk of harm becomes the focus. For example, in 1995 several media stories about calcium-channel blockers emphasized the increased relative risk of heart attack among patients treated with these drugs, rather than the much smaller change in the absolute risk.41,42
Third, our results probably underestimate the extent of ties with industry, because we relied on disclosure in the scientific literature, where such ties have been found to be underreported.39 Finally, we analyzed only the textual content of news stories, omitting the important features of placement, illustration, and length.
The appropriate role of the news media in reporting on medical advances requires more focused attention from both researchers and the media. Some may see the role of media stories as primarily to alert the public to medical advances, which can be further investigated by consumers together with their physicians. Others would favor more complete media reporting of salient aspects of scientific studies, including disclosure of ties with industry. An effective educational program or resource kit for journalists and editors, focusing on the reporting and interpretation of clinical findings, might be timely.3,11,43
Rather than prescribing or proscribing specific behavior on the part of the media, we believe it may be valuable to articulate basic principles of high-quality medical reporting, in line with an evidence-based approach to medicine. When reporting on new forms of technology or new treatments, journalists and editors might consider the evidence available in relation to the following questions: What is the magnitude of the benefit (e.g., both absolute and relative), and what groups of patients can be helped? What are the associated risks and costs? What are the possible links between the sources of information (studies or experts) and those (such as the manufacturers) who promote the therapy? Although not exhaustive, these questions could help inform attempts to improve the quality of medical reporting.
Supported by the Commonwealth Fund and the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Commonwealth Fund or its director, officers, or staff. The work was conducted while Mr. Moynihan was a 1998–1999 Harkness Fellow in Health Care Policy.
We are indebted to Sumit Majumdar, Irene Weilawski, and Mary Seddon for reviewing the manuscript; to Maureen Connelly, Huw Davies, Robert Fletcher, Sue Hill, and Ann Payson for assistance in developing the data-collection instrument; and to Stevan de Prosse, Garnet Harris, Leighton Farquharson, Vinh Do, Sue John, Robert Deveau, Dianne O'Connell, Jayne Fryer, Robert LeCates, and Suzy Conway for technical assistance.
Source Information
From the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston (R.M., D.R.-D., C.M., S.B.S.); the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia (R.M.); the Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy (L.B., K.L.), and Institute for Health Policy Studies, School of Medicine (L.B.), University of California, San Francisco; and the School of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W., Australia (D.H.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Soumerai at the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School, 126 Brookline Ave., Suite 200, Boston, MA 02215, or at ssoumerai@hms.harvard.edu.
- References
References
1
Americans talk about science and medical news: the National Health Council Report. New York: Roper Starch Worldwide, 1997.
2
Oxman AD ,Guyatt GH ,Cook DJ ,Jaeschke R ,Heddle N ,Keller J . An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:987-1001
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Angell M ,Kassirer JP . Clinical research -- what should the public believe? N Engl J Med 1994;331:189-190
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline4
Sitthi-amorn C ,Ngamvithayapongse J . The role of media and communication in improving the use of drugs and other technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998;14:71-80
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Dan B . TV or not TV: communicating health information to the public. JAMA 1992;268:1026-1027
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Entwistle V . Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers. BMJ 1995;310:920-923
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Kennedy GE ,Bero LA . Print media coverage of research on passive smoking. Tob Control 1999;8:254-260
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Grilli R, Freemantle N, Minozzi S, Domenighetti G, Finer D. Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. York, England: Cochrane Collaboration, 2000. (See: http://www.ebando.com/band16/b16-7.html.)
9
Van Trigt A ,de Jong-van den Berg LT ,Haaijer-Ruskamp FM ,Willems J ,Tromp TF . Journalists and their sources of ideas and information on medicines. Soc Sci Med 1994;38:637-643
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Nelkin D . An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet 1996;347:1600-1603
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Schwartz LM ,Woloshin S ,Welch HG . Misunderstandings about the effects of race and sex on physicians' referrals for cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med 1999;341:279-283
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline12
Loo LK ,Byrne JM ,Hardin SB ,Castro D ,Fisher FP . Reporting medical information: does the lay press get it right? J Gen Intern Med 1998;13:Suppl 1:60-60 abstract.
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Brown J ,Chapman S ,Lupton D . Infinitesimal risk as public health crisis: news media coverage of a doctor-patient HIV contact tracing investigation. Soc Sci Med 1996;43:1685-1695
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Lebow M . The pill and the press: reporting risk. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:453-456
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Remuzzi G ,Schieppati A . Lessons from the Di Bella affair. Lancet 1999;353:1289-1290
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Myers M . “Drug may have caused huge number of deaths“: lessons learned during an encounter with the Fifth Estate. CMAJ 1996;155:772-775
Web of Science | Medline17
Soumerai S ,Ross-Degnan D ,Kahn JS . Effects of professional and media warnings about the association between aspirin use in children and Reye's syndrome. Milbank Q 1992;70:155-182
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Hux J ,Naylor CD . Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making 1995;15:152-157
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Naylor CD ,Chen E ,Strauss B . Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med 1992;117:916-921
Web of Science | Medline20
Bucher H ,Weinbacher M ,Gyr K . Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 1994;309:761-764
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Bobbio M ,Demichelis B ,Giustetto G . Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet 1994;343:1209-1211
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Fahey T ,Griffiths S ,Peters TJ . Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 1995;311:1056-1060
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
JAMA instructions for authorsJAMA 1999;281:12-20
24
Van Trigt A ,de Jong-van den Berg LT ,Voogt LM ,Willems J ,Tromp TF ,Haaijer-Ruskamp FM . Setting the agenda: does the medical literature set the agenda for articles about medicines in the newspapers? Soc Sci Med 1995;41:893-899
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Shuchman M ,Wilkes M . Medical scientists and health news reporting: a case of miscommunication. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:976-982
Web of Science | Medline26
Cho M ,Bero L . The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:485-489
Web of Science | Medline27
Davidson R . Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1:155-158
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Rochon PA ,Gurwitz JH ,Simms RW , et al. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:157-163
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
de Groen PC ,Lubbe DF ,Hirsch LJ , et al. Esophagitis associated with the use of alendronate. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1016-1021
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline30
Henry D ,Lim LL ,Garcia Rodriguez LA , et al. Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis. BMJ 1996;312:1563-1566
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors: systemic. In: USP dispensing information. Vol. 1. Drug information for the health care professional. Englewood, Colo.: Micromedex, 1999:1647-51.
32
Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 7th ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1980.
33
Donner A ,Wells G . A comparison of confidence interval methods for the intraclass correlation coefficient. Biometrics 1986;42:401-412[Erratum, Biometrics 1986;42:1009.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline34
Liang K-Y ,Zeger SL . Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986;73:13-22
CrossRef | Web of Science35
Report on alendronate. ABC World News Tonight. May 22, 1996 (transcript).
36
Report on alendronate. NBC Nightly News. May 22, 1996 (transcript).
37
Report on alendronate. CBS Evening News. May 22, 1996 (transcript).
38
McCormack JP ,Levine M . Meaningful interpretation of risk reduction from clinical drug trials. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27:1272-1277
Web of Science | Medline39
Krimsky S ,Rothenberg LS . Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications. JAMA 1998;280:225-226
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline40
Melzer D . New drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease: lessons for healthcare policy. BMJ 1998;316:762-764
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline41
Hazard seen in blood pressure drugs. Los Angeles Times. March 11, 1995:4.
42
Blood pressure drugs defended. The San Diego Tribune. March 15, 1995:A13.
43
Guyatt GH ,Ray J ,Gibson N , et al. A journalist's guide to writing health stories. Am Med Writers Assoc J 1999;14:32-41
- Citing Articles (74)
Citing Articles
1
Nicky Britten. 2011. Adverse Drug Reactions: Societal Considerations. , 573-584.
CrossRef2
Alissa Steinberg, Judy Paisley, Kristofer Bandayrel. (2011) Antioxidant Health Messages in Canadian Women's Magazines. Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research 72:4, e197-e204
CrossRef3
A. Neumeyer-Gromen, N. Bodemer, S.M. Müller, G. Gigerenzer. (2011) Ermöglichen Medienberichte und Broschüren informierte Entscheidungen zur Gebärmutterhalskrebsprävention?. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 54:11, 1197-1210
CrossRef4
Ilan Shahin, Adrienne Einarson. (2011) Knowledge transfer and translation: Examining how teratogen information is disseminated. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology 91:11, 956-961
CrossRef5
Shawnta Coleman, Prema P. Peethambaram, Aminah Jatoi. (2011) Consumer Beware: A Systematic Assessment of Potential Bias in the Lay Electronic Media to Examine the Portrayal of “PARP” Inhibitors for Cancer Treatment. Journal of Cancer Education 26:3, 474-477
CrossRef6
Avani D. Joshi, Dipen A. Patel, David A. Holdford. (2011) Media coverage of off-label promotion: A content analysis of US newspapers. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 7:3, 257-271
CrossRef7
Judith Covey. (2011) The Effects of Absolute Risks, Relative Risks, Frequencies, and Probabilities on Decision Quality. Journal of Health Communication 16:7, 788-801
CrossRef8
Gema Revuelta. (2011) Salud en España durante el período 2000-2009: aproximación a través del análisis de la prensa. Medicina Clínica
CrossRef9
Daniel Hind, Allan J. Wailoo, Paul Sutcliffe. (2011) Demands for ‘off-licence’ access to trastuzumab (Herceptin): content analysis of UK newspaper articles. Health Expectations 14:1, 38-47
CrossRef10
Mohamed E.K. Amin, Betty A. Chewning, Ashraf M.H. Wahdan. (2011) Sources of drug information for patients with chronic conditions in Alexandria, Egypt. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 19:1, 13-20
CrossRef11
Jamie C Brehaut, Nancy Santesso, Annette M O'Connor, Alison Lott, Gitte Lindgaard, Ania Syrowatka, Ian D Graham, Peter S Tugwell. (2011) Presenting Evidence to Patients Online: What Do Web Users Think of Consumer Summaries of Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews?. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13:1,
CrossRef12
James C. Overholser, Abby Braden, Lauren Fisher. (2010) You’ve Got to Believe: Core Beliefs that Underlie Effective Psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 40:4, 185-194
CrossRef13
Cinzia Colombo, Paola Mosconi, Maria Grazia Buratti, Alessandro Liberati, Serena Donati, Alfonso Mele, Roberto Satolli. (2010) Press coverage of hormone replacement therapy and menopause. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 153:1, 56-61
CrossRef14
Ross Brennan, Stephan Dahl, Lynne Eagle. (2010) Persuading young consumers to make healthy nutritional decisions. Journal of Marketing Management 26:7-8, 635-655
CrossRef15
Jeff J. Guo, Swapnil Pandey, John Doyle, Boyang Bian, Yvonne Lis, Dennis W. Raisch. (2010) A Review of Quantitative Risk–Benefit Methodologies for Assessing Drug Safety and Efficacy—Report of the ISPOR Risk–Benefit Management Working Group. Value in Health 13:5, 657-666
CrossRef16
Gary King, Langche Zeng. 2010. Case-Control Studies, Inference in. , 250-259.
CrossRef17
Monique Lewis, Paul Orrock, Stephen Myers. (2010) Uncritical reverence in CM reporting: Assessing the scientific quality of Australian news media reports. Health Sociology Review 19:1, 57-72
CrossRef18
Maria J. Nelson, Nicole M. DeIorio, Terri Schmidt, Denise Griffiths, Mohamud Daya, Liana Haywood, Dana Zive, Craig D. Newgard. (2010) Local Media Influence on Opting Out From an Exception From Informed Consent Trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine 55:1, 1-8
CrossRef19
Pierre L. Yong, Cabral Bigman, David N. Flynn, Danielle Mittermaier, Judith A. Long. (2009) Messages about Black-Box Warnings. Drug Safety 32:12, 1147-1157
CrossRef20
Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren. (2009) Bottom-up approach to successful implementation of pharmaceutical policy. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 9:3, 193-195
CrossRef21
Sandi W. Smith, Samantha Nazione, Carolyn LaPlante, Michael R. Kotowski, Charles Atkin, Christine M. Skubisz, Cynthia Stohl. (2009) Topics and Sources of Memorable Breast Cancer Messages and Their Impact on Prevention and Detection Behaviors. Journal of Health Communication 14:3, 293-307
CrossRef22
Ross MacKenzie, Nathalie Johnson, Simon Chapman, Simon Holding. (2009) Smoking-related disease on Australian television news: inaccurate portrayals may contribute to public misconceptions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 33:2, 144-146
CrossRef23
Alesia Zuccala. (2009) The lay person and Open Access. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 43:1, 1-62
CrossRef24
Katherine A. McComas. (2008) Session 5: Nutrition communication The role of trust in health communication and the effect of conflicts of interest among scientists. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 67:04, 428
CrossRef25
Rebecca L. Sudore, C. Seth Landefeld, Steven Z. Pantilat, Kathryn M. Noyes, Dean Schillinger. (2008) Reach and Impact of a Mass Media Event Among Vulnerable Patients: The Terri Schiavo Story. Journal of General Internal Medicine 23:11, 1854-1857
CrossRef26
Helen Prosser, Karen Clayson. (2008) A content analysis of prescription drug information in the UK print news media. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 16:4, 223-230
CrossRef27
E. M. Kahle, E. A. Barash, L. C. Page, A. Lansky, K. Jafa, P. S. Sullivan, S. E. Buskin. (2008) Evaluation of the Impact of News Coverage of an HIV Multiclass Drug-Resistant Cluster in Seattle, Washington. American Journal of Public Health 99:S1, S131-S136
CrossRef28
Shawn Anthony, Santiago Lozano-Calderon, David Ring. (2008) Stigmatization of Repetitive Hand Use in Newspaper Reports of Hand Illness. HAND 3:1, 30-33
CrossRef29
Nicole Monastersky Maderas, Sharon Cohen Landau, Belle Taylor-McGhee. (2008) The continuum of care: a case for pharmacists as key members of the reproductive health care team. Contraception 77:3, 139-142
CrossRef30
Mary K. Canales, Erica S. Breslau, David E. Nelson, Rachel R. Ballard-Barbash. (2008) Did News Reporters Get It Right?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34:1, 61-68
CrossRef31
Gerd Gigerenzer, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Elke Kurz-Milcke, Lisa M. Schwartz, Steven Woloshin. (2007) Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8:2, 53-96
CrossRef32
Filip Mussen, Sam Salek, Stuart Walker. (2007) A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines – part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 16:S1, S2-S15
CrossRef33
Sei-Hill Kim, L. Anne Willis. (2007) Talking about Obesity: News Framing of Who Is Responsible for Causing and Fixing the Problem. Journal of Health Communication 12:4, 359-376
CrossRef34
S. Michelle Driedger. (2007) Risk and the Media: A Comparison of Print and Televised News Stories of a Canadian Drinking Water Risk Event. Risk Analysis 27:3, 775-786
CrossRef35
Pol Morales, Fèlix Bosch. (2007) Hechos históricos de las sulfamidas divulgados por la prensa: el caso de The New York Times. Medicina Clínica 128:17, 660-664
CrossRef36
David E. Nelson, W. Douglas Evans, Linda L. Pederson, Stephen Babb, Joel London, Jeffrey McKenna. (2007) A National Surveillance System for Tracking Tobacco News Stories. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 32:1, 79-85
CrossRef37
Dianne C. Berry, Peter Knapp, Theo Raynor. (2006) Expressing medicine side effects: Assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information. Patient Education and Counseling 63:1-2, 89-96
CrossRef38
Susannah E. Motl, Erin M. Timpe, Samantha F. Eichner. (2006) Evaluating the Accuracy of Health News Publications in a Drug Literature Evaluation Course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 70:4, 83
CrossRef39
L. Vercellesi, C. Centemeri, G. F. Miranda, B. Rotta, F. Bruno. (2006) How to provide an alerting service on health topics for medical journalists selecting papers from scientific journals. Health Information and Libraries Journal 23:3, 223-228
CrossRef40
Stefania Milazzo, Edzard Ernst. (2006) Newspaper coverage of complementary and alternative therapies for cancer—UK 2002–2004. Supportive Care in Cancer 14:9, 885-889
CrossRef41
Patricia A. Collins, Julia Abelson, Heather Pyman, John N. Lavis. (2006) Are we expecting too much from print media? An analysis of newspaper coverage of the 2002 Canadian healthcare reform debate. Social Science & Medicine 63:1, 89-102
CrossRef42
Denise Rankin-Box. (2006) Shaping medical knowledge II: Bias and balance. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice 12:2, 77-79
CrossRef43
Bryn Williams-Jones. (2006) ‘Be ready against cancer, now’: direct-to-consumer advertising for genetic testing. New Genetics and Society 25:1, 89-107
CrossRef44
Jennifer S. Haas, Berta Geller, Diana L. Miglioretti, Diana S. M. Buist, David E. Nelson, Karla Kerlikowske, Patricia A. Carney, Erica S. Breslau, Sarah Dash, Mary K. Canales, Rachel Ballard-Barbash. (2006) Changes in Newspaper Coverage About Hormone Therapy with the Release of New Medical Evidence. Journal of General Internal Medicine 21:4, 304-309
CrossRef45
Hedwig M Natter, Dianne C Berry. (2005) Effects of presenting the baseline risk when communicating absolute and relative risk reductions. Psychology, Health & Medicine 10:4, 326-334
CrossRef46
Jane Wright. (2005) Hormone replacement therapy: an example of McKinlay's theory on the seven stages of medical innovation. Journal of Clinical Nursing 14:9, 1090-1097
CrossRef47
Flavia Bruno, Luisa Vercellesi, Giovanna F. Miranda. (2005) Helping doctors put patients first: an innovative service from health libraries. Health Information & Libraries Journal 22:3, 219-223
CrossRef48
Fredrik Brounéus, Anna Dahlin, Björn Beermann. (2005) Press coverage and sales of Xenical in Sweden, 1998–2000. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 61:4, 285-289
CrossRef49
Felicia E. Mebane. (2005) The importance of news media in pharmaceutical risk communication: proceedings of a workshop. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 14:5, 297-306
CrossRef50
Antonio Vallano Ferraz, Roser Llop Rius, Montserrat Bosch Ferrer, Inma Danés Carreras. (2005) Noticias sobre medicamentos en los suplementos de salud de la prensa española. Medicina Clínica 124:19, 754-755
CrossRef51
K. Behan, C. Cutts, Susan E. Tett. (2005) Uptake of new drugs in rural and urban areas of Queensland, Australia: the example of COX-2 inhibitors. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 61:1, 55-58
CrossRef52
Neil A. Holtzman, Barbara A. Bernhardt, Eliza Mountcastle-Shah, Joann E. Rodgers, Ellen Tambor, Gail Geller. (2005) The Quality of Media Reports on Discoveries Related to Human Genetic Diseases. Community Genetics 8:3, 133-144
CrossRef53
Gary Schwitzer, Ganapati Mudur, David Henry, Amanda Wilson, Merrill Goozner, Maria Simbra, Melissa Sweet, Katherine A. Baverstock. (2005) What Are the Roles and Responsibilities of the Media in Disseminating Health Information?. PLoS Medicine 2:7, e215
CrossRef54
James C. Overholser. (2005) Contemporary Psychotherapy: Promoting Personal Responsibility for Therapeutic Change. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 35:4, 369-376
CrossRef55
Sandi L. Pruitt, Patricia Dolan Mullen. (2005) Contraception or abortion? Inaccurate descriptions of emergency contraception in newspaper articles, 1992–2002. Contraception 71:1, 14-21
CrossRef56
Timothy Caulfield. (2004) Biotechnology and the popular press: hype and the selling of science. Trends in Biotechnology 22:7, 337-339
CrossRef57
Rodolfo Passalacqua, Caterina Caminiti, Stefania Salvagni, Sandro Barni, Giordano D. Beretta, Paolo Carlini, Antonio Contu, Francesco Di Costanzo, Lucia Toscano, Francesco Campione. (2004) Effects of media information on cancer patients' opinions, feelings, decision-making process and physician-patient communication. Cancer 100:5, 1077-1084
CrossRef58
Rebecca Anhang, Jo Ellen Stryker, Thomas C. Wright, Sue J. Goldie. (2004) News media coverage of human papillomavirus. Cancer 100:2, 308-314
CrossRef59
Ray Moynihan. (2004) The Intangible Magic of Celebrity Marketing. PLoS Medicine 1:2, e42
CrossRef60
Eric E. Adelman, Jason H.T. Karlawish. (2003) Ignoring the Controversies: Newspaper Reports on Alzheimer's Disease Treatments. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 51:12, 1821-1822
CrossRef61
Anna Larsson, Andrew D Oxman, Cheryl Carling, Jeph Herrin. (2003) Medical messages in the media - barriers and solutions to improving medical journalism. Health Expectations 6:4, 323-331
CrossRef62
Judith Buttriss. (2003) Scene setting: who is the voice of nutrition in Britain?. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62:03, 573-575
CrossRef63
Giovanni A. Fava. (2003) Conflict of interest and the credibility of medical journals. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 12:01, 11-14
CrossRef64
Karen Stamm, John W. Williams, Polly Hitchcock Noel, Rita Rubin. (2003) Helping Journalists Get It Right. A Physician's Guide to Improving Health Care Reporting. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18:2, 138-145
CrossRef65
Lisa M. Schwartz. (2003) On the Prevention and Treatment of Exaggeration. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18:2, 153-154
CrossRef66
David O. Antonuccio, William G. Danton, Terry Michael McClanahan. (2003) Psychology in the Prescription Era: Building a Firewall Between Marketing and Science.. American Psychologist 58:12, 1028-1043
CrossRef67
Jo Ellen Stryker. (2002) Reporting Medical Information: Effects of Press Releases and Newsworthiness on Medical Journal Articles' Visibility in the News Media. Preventive Medicine 35:5, 519-530
CrossRef68
Gary King, Langche Zeng. (2002) Estimating risk and rate levels, ratios and differences in case-control studies. Statistics in Medicine 21:10, 1409-1427
CrossRef69
C. W. Lee, L. Weir, K. A. Gelmon. (2001) Effect of News Media Coverage of Cancer Risk on Clinical Oncology Practice. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93:21, 1656-1657
CrossRef70
Steven Woloshin, Lisa M Schwartz, Jennifer Tremmel, H Gilbert Welch. (2001) Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: what are Americans being sold?. The Lancet 358:9288, 1141-1146
CrossRef71
. (2001) Medicijnen in de media. Medisch-Farmaceutische Mededelingen 39:5, 89-90
CrossRef72
William M Landau. (2001) Fat fetishism, dietary dread, and the freedom factor. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54:5, 535-536
CrossRef73
Steinbrook, Robert, . (2000) Medical Journals and Medical Reporting. New England Journal of Medicine 342:22, 1668-1671
Full Text74
&NA;. (2000) Shortcomings in news media coverage about medicines. Inpharma Weekly &NA;:1241, 4
CrossRef
