Correspondence

Medical Research and the News Media

N Engl J Med 2005; 352:838-839February 24, 2005

Article

To the Editor:

Investigators, academic institutions, specialty societies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical-device manufacturers are listed in Campion's editorial (Dec. 2 issue)1 as benefiting from media exposure — to these should be added medical journals that have a vested interest in attracting media coverage, subscribers, and submissions. Although the New England Journal of Medicine has avoided doing so, many journals have been shown to issue press releases that do not acknowledge limitations in published studies, thus exacerbating misunderstanding on the part of the media and the public.2

The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh have recognized that something is needed between the scientific content of journals and media coverage of medicine and believe that doctors should not passively accept the media's lack of interest in follow-up. We have established a new public Web site (www.behindthemedicalheadlines.com), which provides short background articles, written by specialists, on selected areas of interest to the media. The Web site is financed by the Colleges, articles are peer-reviewed, and conflicts of interest are sought out. Although this Web site is relatively new, public usage is encouraging, and we would recommend ventures such as this to others.

Niall D.C. Finlayson, B.Sc., M.B.
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JQ, United Kingdom

Stephen J. Nixon, B.Sc., M.B.
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9DW, United Kingdom

Graeme W. McAlister
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JQ, United Kingdom
g.mcalister@rcpe.ac.uk

2 References

1. 1

   Campion EW. Medical research and the news media. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2436-2437
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

2. 2

   Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA 2002;287:2856-2858
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

To the Editor:

Campion identifies responsibilities on the part of medical journals, investigators, and the media for ensuring accurate interpretation and reporting of medical news. One barrier to improvement is the absence of good critiques of media reporting. In Australia, a media-monitoring Web site (www.mediadoctor.org.au) operated by an independent group of clinicians and academics attempts to provide such critiques. News stories about medical treatments are assessed with regard to quality by two reviewers using a 10-item rating scale. Consensus scores and critiques are posted on the Web site, along with cumulative scores for major media outlets.

A review of the first 104 stories evaluated (from February through September 2004) indicates that the major weaknesses are inadequate quantification of evidence on benefits and harms, failure to acknowledge treatment alternatives, and the absence of cost information and of comment by independent experts. Online media performed significantly worse than print media.

Patricia McGettigan, M.D.
David Henry, M.B.
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, 2298 NSW, Australia
gmcgetti@mail.newcastle.edu.au

Author/Editor Response

Both Dr. Finlayson and colleagues and Drs. McGettigan and Henry describe responses to the problem of substandard media reports on medical topics. Offering critiques of media reports and providing educational materials are admirable responses. In the long run, our profession should develop better communication with those in the medical-news media for collaborations that encourage reporting that is informative and balanced. It is also important for us to expose any medical professionals or organizations (including pharmaceutical companies and even journals) that use the media to give the public medical information that is inaccurate or misleading.

Edward W. Campion, M.D.