Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18545688›Full record

ArticlePloS one2008

An analysis of news media coverage of complementary and alternative medicine.

Billie Bonevski, Amanda Wilson, David A Henry

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A qualitative study exploring high school students' understanding of, and attitudes towards, health information and claims.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Body massage performance investigation by brain activity analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2012
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Trick or treat? Australian newspaper portrayal of complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2011
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Billie BonevskiDiscipline of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. billie.bonevski@newcastle.edu.au
Amanda Wilson
David A Henry

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo examine the accuracy and adequacy of lay media news stories about complementary and alternative medicines and therapies. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsA descriptive analysis of news stories about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the Australian media using a national medical news monitoring website, mediadoctor.org.au. Each story was rated against 10 criteria by two individuals. Consensus scores of 222 news articles reporting therapeutic claims about complementary medicines posted on mediadoctor.org.au between 1 January 2004 and 1 September 2007 were calculated. The overall rating score for 222 CAM articles was 50% (95% CI 47% to 53%). There was a statistically significant (F = 3.68, p = 0.006) difference in cumulative mean scores according to type of therapy: biologically based practices (54%, 95% CI 50% to 58%); manipulative body based practices (46%, 95% CI 39% to 54%), whole medical systems (45%, 95% CI 32% to 58%), mind body medicine (41%, 95% CI 31% to 50%) and energy medicine (33%, 95% CI 11% to 55%). There was a statistically significant difference in cumulative mean scores (F = 3.72, p = 0.0001) according to the clinical outcome of interest with stories about cancer treatments (62%, 95% CI 54% to 70%) scoring highest and stories about treatments for children's behavioural and mental health concerns scoring lowest (31%, 95% CI 19% to 43%). Significant differences were also found in scores between media outlets. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: There is substantial variability in news reporting practices about CAM. Overall, although they may be improving, the scores remain generally low. It appears that much of the information the public receives about CAM is inaccurate or incomplete.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesMass MediaTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID18545688
PMCPMC2405931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.