Smith David E, Wilson Amanda J, Henry David A
South Lakes Medical Group, Dora Creek, NSW.
Med J Aust. 2005 Aug 15;183(4):190-3. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06992.x.
To analyse the reviews of medical news articles posted on media doctor, a medical news-story monitoring website.
A descriptive summary of operating the media doctor website between 1 February and 1 September 2004.
Consensus scores for 10 assessment criteria for the medical intervention described in the article (novelty, availability in Australia, alternative treatment options given, evidence of "disease mongering", objective supportive evidence given, quantification of benefits, coverage of harms, coverage of costs, independent sources of information, and excessive reliance on a press release); cumulative article rating scores for major media outlets.
104 news articles were featured on media doctor in the study period. Both online and print media scored poorly, although the print media were superior: mean total scores 56.1% satisfactory for print and 40.1% for online; percentage points difference 15.9 (95% CI, 8.3-23.6). The greatest differences were seen for the use of independent information sources, quantification of benefits and coverage of potential harms.
Australian lay news reporting of medical advances, particularly by the online news services, is poor. This might improve if journals and researchers became more active in communicating with the press and the public.
分析发布在医学新闻故事监测网站“媒体医生”上的医学新闻文章的评论。
对2004年2月1日至9月1日运营“媒体医生”网站的情况进行描述性总结。
文章中描述的医学干预措施的10项评估标准的共识评分（新颖性、在澳大利亚的可获得性、给出的替代治疗方案、“疾病贩卖”的证据、给出的客观支持证据、益处的量化、危害的报道、成本的报道、信息的独立来源以及对新闻稿的过度依赖）；主要媒体机构的文章累计评分。
在研究期间，“媒体医生”上刊登了104篇新闻文章。在线媒体和印刷媒体的得分都很低，不过印刷媒体表现稍好：印刷媒体的平均总满意度得分为56.1%，在线媒体为40.1%；百分点差异为15.9（95%置信区间，8.3 - 23.6）。在使用独立信息来源、益处的量化以及潜在危害的报道方面差异最大。
澳大利亚大众媒体对医学进展的报道，尤其是在线新闻服务的报道较差。如果期刊和研究人员在与媒体及公众的沟通上更加积极主动，这种情况可能会有所改善。
