对谷歌健康新闻中突出报道的一项评估干预措施的研究结果的解读：一项新闻横断面研究
Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News.
作者信息
Haneef Romana, Lazarus Clement, Ravaud Philippe, Yavchitz Amélie, Boutron Isabelle
机构信息
INSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
INSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, United States of America.
出版信息
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 16;10(10):e0140889. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140889. eCollection 2015.
BACKGROUND
Mass media through the Internet is a powerful means of disseminating medical research. We aimed to determine whether and how the interpretation of research results is misrepresented by the use of "spin" in the health section of Google News. Spin was defined as specific way of reporting, from whatever motive (intentional or unintentional), to emphasize that the beneficial effect of the intervention is greater than that shown by the results.
METHODS
We conducted a cross-sectional study of news highlighted in the health section of US, UK and Canada editions of Google News between July 2013 and January 2014. We searched for news items for 3 days a week (i.e., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) during 6 months and selected a sample of 130 news items reporting a scientific article evaluating the effect of an intervention on human health.
RESULTS
In total, 78% of the news did not provide a full reference or electronic link to the scientific article. We found at least one spin in 114 (88%) news items and 18 different types of spin in news. These spin were mainly related to misleading reporting (59%) such as not reporting adverse events that were reported in the scientific article (25%), misleading interpretation (69%) such as claiming a causal effect despite non-randomized study design (49%) and overgeneralization/misleading extrapolation (41%) of the results such as extrapolating a beneficial effect from an animal study to humans (21%). We also identified some new types of spin such as highlighting a single patient experience for the success of a new treatment instead of focusing on the group results.
CONCLUSIONS
Interpretation of research results was frequently misrepresented in the health section of Google News. However, we do not know whether these spin were from the scientific articles themselves or added in the news.
背景
通过互联网的大众媒体是传播医学研究的有力手段。我们旨在确定谷歌新闻健康板块中使用“倾向性报道”是否以及如何歪曲研究结果的解读。倾向性报道被定义为无论出于何种动机（有意或无意），通过特定的报道方式来强调干预措施的有益效果大于研究结果所显示的效果。
方法
我们对2013年7月至2014年1月期间美国、英国和加拿大版谷歌新闻健康板块中突出显示的新闻进行了横断面研究。我们在6个月内每周三天（即周一、周三和周五）搜索新闻条目，并选取了130篇报道评估干预措施对人类健康影响的科学文章的新闻条目作为样本。
结果
总体而言，78%的新闻未提供科学文章的完整参考文献或电子链接。我们在114篇（88%）新闻条目中发现了至少一种倾向性报道，新闻中有18种不同类型的倾向性报道。这些倾向性报道主要与误导性报道（59%）有关，例如未报道科学文章中提及的不良事件（25%），误导性解读（69%），如尽管是非随机研究设计却声称存在因果效应（49%），以及结果的过度概括/误导性推断（41%），如将动物研究中的有益效果外推至人类（21%）。我们还发现了一些新的倾向性报道类型，例如突出单个患者的新治疗成功经历而非关注群体结果。
结论
谷歌新闻健康板块中研究结果的解读经常被歪曲。然而，我们不知道这些倾向性报道是源于科学文章本身还是在新闻中添加的。
Zotero 插件