Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News?

Senthil Selvaraj · Durga S. Borkar · Vinay K. Prasad

60 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Publishing and Open Access Journalism and Media Studies Media Studies and Communication

Abstract

BACKGROUND: News coverage of medical research is followed closely by many Americans and affects the practice of medicine and influence of scientific research. Prior work has examined the quality of media coverage, but no investigation has characterized the choice of stories covered in a controlled manner. We examined whether the media systematically covers stories of weaker study design. METHODS: We compared study characteristics of 75 clinically-oriented journal articles that received coverage in the top five newspapers by circulation against 75 clinically-oriented journal articles that appeared in the top five medical journals by impact factor over a similar timespan. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether differences between investigations from both sources varied by study type (randomized controlled trial [RCT] or observational study). RESULTS: Investigations receiving coverage from newspapers were less likely to be RCTs (17% vs. 35%, p = 0.016) and more likely to be observational studies (75% vs. 47%, p<0.001). No difference was observed in number of people studied (median: 1034 vs. 1901, p = 0.14) or length of follow-up (median: 1.80 vs. 1.00 years, p = 0.22). In subgroup analysis, observational studies from the media used smaller sample sizes (median: 1984 vs. 21136, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be cross-sectional (71% vs. 31%, p<0.001), while no differences were observed for RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Newspapers were more likely to cover observational studies and less likely to cover RCTs than high impact journals. Additionally, when the media does cover observational studies, they select articles of inferior quality. Newspapers preferentially cover medical research with weaker methodology.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 60 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research 2001Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies 2002Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation 1991Importance of the Lay Press in the Transmission of Medical Knowledge to the Scientific Community 2012Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study 2012Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study

Cited by

2017Newsworthiness vs scientific impact: are the most highly cited urology papers the most widely disseminated in the media?2017Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments 2018Causal interpretation of correlational studies – Analysis of medical news on the website of the official journal for German physicians 2020Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.