Wang Michael T M, Bolland Mark J, Gamble Greg, Grey Andrew
Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 23;10(12):e0145294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145294. eCollection 2015.
Publication of clinical research findings in prominent journals influences health beliefs and medical practice, in part by engendering news coverage. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be most influential in guiding clinical practice. We determined whether study design of clinical research published in high-impact journals influences media coverage.
We compared the incidence and amount of media coverage of RCTs with that of observational studies published in the top 7 medical journals between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2013. We specifically assessed media coverage of the most rigorous RCTs, those with >1000 participants that reported 'hard' outcomes. There was no difference between RCTs and observational studies in coverage by major newspapers or news agencies, or in total number of news stories generated (all P>0.63). Large RCTs reporting 'hard' outcomes did not generate more news coverage than small RCTs that reported surrogate outcomes and observational studies (all P>0.32). RCTs were more likely than observational studies to attract a journal editorial (70% vs 46%, P = 0.003), but less likely to be the subject of a journal press release (17% vs 50%, P<0.001). Large RCTs that reported 'hard' outcomes did not attract an editorial more frequently than other studies (61% vs 58%, P>0.99), nor were they more likely to be the subject of a journal press release (14% vs 38%, P = 0.14).
The design of clinical studies whose results are published in high-impact medical journals is not associated with the likelihood or amount of ensuing news coverage.
在著名期刊上发表临床研究结果会影响健康观念和医疗实践，部分原因是引发新闻报道。随机对照试验（RCT）在指导临床实践方面应最具影响力。我们确定了在高影响力期刊上发表的临床研究的研究设计是否会影响媒体报道。
我们比较了2013年1月1日至2013年3月31日期间发表在7种顶级医学期刊上的随机对照试验与观察性研究的媒体报道发生率和报道量。我们特别评估了最严格的随机对照试验的媒体报道，即那些有超过1000名参与者且报告“硬”结局的试验。在主要报纸或新闻机构的报道以及产生的新闻报道总数方面，随机对照试验与观察性研究之间没有差异（所有P>0.63）。报告“硬”结局的大型随机对照试验所产生的新闻报道并不比报告替代结局的小型随机对照试验和观察性研究更多（所有P>0.32）。随机对照试验比观察性研究更有可能吸引期刊社论（70%对46%，P = 0.003），但成为期刊新闻稿主题的可能性较小（17%对50%，P<0.001）。报告“硬”结局的大型随机对照试验吸引社论的频率并不比其他研究更高（61%对58%，P>0.99），也没有更有可能成为期刊新闻稿的主题（14%对38%，P = 0.14）。
在高影响力医学期刊上发表结果的临床研究设计与随后新闻报道的可能性或报道量无关。
