Woloshin Steven, Schwartz Lisa M
VA Outcomes Group, Dartmouth Medical School, White River Junction, VT, USA.
Med J Aust. 2006 Jun 5;184(11):576-80. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00384.x.
To examine media stories on research presented at scientific meetings to see if they reported basic study facts and cautions, and whether they were clear about the preliminary stage of the research.
Three physicians with clinical epidemiology training analysed front-page newspaper stories (n = 32), other newspaper stories (n = 142), and television/radio stories (n = 13) identified in LexisNexis and ProQuest searches for research reports from five scientific meetings in 2002-2003 (American Heart Association, 14th Annual International AIDS Conference, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Society for Neuroscience, and the Radiological Society of North America).
Media reporting of basic study facts (size, design, quantification of results); cautions about study designs with intrinsic limitations (animal/laboratory studies, studies with < 30 people, uncontrolled studies, controlled but not randomised studies) or downsides (adverse effects in intervention studies); warnings about the preliminary stage of the research presented at scientific meetings.
34% of the 187 stories did not mention study size, 18% did not mention study design (another 35% were so ambiguous that expert readers had to guess the design), and 40% did not quantify the main result. Only 6% of news stories about animal studies mentioned their limited relevance to human health; 21% of stories about small studies noted problems with the precision of the finding; 10% of stories about uncontrolled studies noted it was not possible to know if the outcome really related to the exposure; and 19% of stories about controlled but not randomised studies raised the possibility of confounding. Only 29% of the 142 news stories on intervention studies noted the possibility of any potential downside. Twelve stories mentioned a corresponding "in press" medical journal article; two of the remaining 175 noted that findings were unpublished, might not have undergone peer review, or might change.
News stories about scientific meeting research presentations often omit basic study facts and cautions. Consequently, the public may be misled about the validity and relevance of the science presented.
研究科学会议上所展示研究的媒体报道，看其是否报道了基础研究事实及注意事项，以及是否明确指出研究处于初步阶段。
三位接受过临床流行病学培训的医生分析了在LexisNexis和ProQuest数据库中搜索到的2002 - 2003年五次科学会议（美国心脏协会、第14届国际艾滋病大会、美国临床肿瘤学会、神经科学学会和北美放射学会）研究报告的头版报纸报道（n = 32）、其他报纸报道（n = 142）以及电视/广播报道（n = 13）。
媒体对基础研究事实（样本量、设计、结果量化）的报道；对存在内在局限性的研究设计（动物/实验室研究、样本量小于30人的研究、非对照研究、对照但非随机研究）或不利方面（干预研究中的不良反应）的注意事项；对科学会议上所展示研究处于初步阶段的警示。
187篇报道中，34%未提及样本量，18%未提及研究设计（另有35%表述模糊，专业读者需猜测设计），40%未对主要结果进行量化。关于动物研究的新闻报道中，仅6%提及它们与人类健康的相关性有限；关于小样本研究的报道中，21%指出研究结果准确性存在问题；关于非对照研究的报道中，10%指出无法确定结果是否真的与暴露因素有关；关于对照但非随机研究的报道中，19%提出存在混杂因素的可能性。在142篇干预研究的新闻报道中，仅29%提到了任何潜在不利方面的可能性。12篇报道提及了相应的“即将发表”的医学期刊文章；其余175篇中，有两篇指出研究结果未发表、可能未经过同行评审或可能会改变。
关于科学会议研究报告的新闻报道常常遗漏基础研究事实及注意事项。因此，公众可能会被误导，对所展示科学的有效性和相关性产生误解。
