ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2011
Consumer beware: a systematic assessment of potential bias in the lay electronic media to examine the portrayal of "PARP" inhibitors for cancer treatment.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits: the bevacizumab case study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined how the lay electronic media covers poly-ADP-ribose polymerase, or "PARP," inhibitors, a class of cancer agents currently under clinical investigation. Of 771 internet links, 51 targeted the lay public. Independent review by two investigators yielded the following categorizations: 36 (71%) were "overly positive", 15 (29%) "neutral", and none "overly negative". "Overly positive" articles used: (l) overstated benefit, (2) included quotations from enthusiastic scientists, and (3) discussed single or small patient subsets. They used such phrases as "the holy grail of cancer research", "the most exciting development in cancer research in a decade or more…. it could save thousands of lives", and "we were surprised and delighted…. it's the kind of thing you don't really think will happen". Healthcare providers should be aware of the foregoing when discussing PARP inhibitors-and perhaps other novel therapies-with cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.