VA Outcomes Group, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, VT 05009, USA.
BMJ. 2012 Jan 27;344:d8164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8164.
To determine whether the quality of press releases issued by medical journals can influence the quality of associated newspaper stories.
Retrospective cohort study of medical journal press releases and associated news stories.
We reviewed consecutive issues (going backwards from January 2009) of five major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine) to identify the first 100 original research articles with quantifiable outcomes and that had generated any newspaper coverage (unique stories ≥100 words long). We identified 759 associated newspaper stories using Lexis Nexis and Factiva searches, and 68 journal press releases using Eurekalert and journal website searches. Two independent research assistants assessed the quality of journal articles, press releases, and a stratified random sample of associated newspaper stories (n=343) by using a structured coding scheme for the presence of specific quality measures: basic study facts, quantification of the main result, harms, and limitations.
Proportion of newspaper stories with specific quality measures (adjusted for whether the quality measure was present in the journal article's abstract or editor note).
We recorded a median of three newspaper stories per journal article (range 1-72). Of 343 stories analysed, 71% reported on articles for which medical journals had issued press releases. 9% of stories quantified the main result with absolute risks when this information was not in the press release, 53% did so when it was in the press release (relative risk 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 15.4), and 20% when no press release was issued (2.2, 0.83 to 6.1). 133 (39%) stories reported on research describing beneficial interventions. 24% mentioned harms (or specifically declared no harms) when harms were not mentioned in the press release, 68% when mentioned in the press release (2.8, 1.1 to 7.4), and 36% when no press release was issued (1.5, 0.49 to 4.4). 256 (75%) stories reported on research with important limitations. 16% reported any limitations when limitations were not mentioned in the press release, 48% when mentioned in the press release (3.0, 1.5 to 6.2), and 21% if no press release was issued (1.3, 0.50 to 3.6).
High quality press releases issued by medical journals seem to make the quality of associated newspaper stories better, whereas low quality press releases might make them worse.
确定医学期刊发布的新闻稿质量是否会影响相关报纸报道的质量。
医学期刊新闻稿和相关新闻报道的回顾性队列研究。
我们回顾了五本主要医学期刊（《内科学年鉴》、《英国医学杂志》、《国家癌症研究所杂志》、《美国医学会杂志》和《新英格兰医学杂志》）连续发行的期刊（从 2009 年 1 月开始倒序），以确定前 100 篇具有可量化结果且有任何报纸报道的原始研究文章（独特报道长度≥100 字）。我们使用 Lexis Nexis 和 Factiva 搜索，共发现了 759 篇相关的报纸报道，使用 Eurekalert 和期刊网站搜索，共发现了 68 份期刊新闻稿。两名独立的研究助理使用结构化编码方案评估了期刊文章、新闻稿和随机抽取的 343 份相关报纸报道的质量：研究事实基础、主要结果的量化、危害和局限性。
报道特定质量措施的报纸报道比例（根据质量措施是否出现在期刊文章摘要或编辑说明中进行调整）。
我们记录了每篇期刊文章中位数为 3 篇的报纸报道（范围为 1-72 篇）。在分析的 343 篇报道中，有 71%的报道是关于医学期刊发布新闻稿的文章。9%的报道以绝对风险的形式量化了主要结果，如果新闻稿中没有这些信息，53%的报道是在新闻稿中进行量化（相对风险 6.0，95%置信区间 2.3 至 15.4），而 20%的报道没有发布新闻稿（2.2，0.83 至 6.1）。133 篇（39%）报道描述了有益干预措施的研究。24%的报道提到了危害（或特别声明没有危害），当危害没有在新闻稿中提到时，68%的报道提到了危害（2.8，1.1 至 7.4），而当没有发布新闻稿时，36%的报道提到了危害（1.5，0.49 至 4.4）。256 篇（75%）报道描述了具有重要局限性的研究。16%的报道在新闻稿中没有提到任何局限性，48%的报道在新闻稿中提到了局限性（3.0，1.5 至 6.2），而 21%的报道在没有发布新闻稿时提到了局限性（1.3，0.50 至 3.6）。
医学期刊发布的高质量新闻稿似乎会提高相关报纸报道的质量，而低质量的新闻稿可能会降低其质量。
