Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25520234›Full record

Observational studyBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Televised medical talk shows--what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study.

Christina Korownyk, Michael R Kolber, James McCormack, Vanessa Lam, Kate Overbo, Candra Cotton, Caitlin Finley, Ricky D Turgeon, Scott Garrison, Adrienne J Lindblad and 4 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Adverse effects of media reports on the treatment of osteoporosis.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2018
    Review
  8. Social Medicine: Twitter in Healthcare.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Trends in Media Reports, Oral Bisphosphonate Prescriptions, and Hip Fractures 1996-2012: An Ecological Analysis.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2015
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Christina KorownykDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4 tina.korownyk@ualberta.ca.
Michael R KolberDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.
James McCormackFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2405 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z3.
Vanessa LamFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 2J2.00 WC Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2R7.
Kate OverboFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, 2J2.00 WC Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2R7.
Candra CottonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.
Caitlin FinleyDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.
Ricky D TurgeonFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2405 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z3.
Scott GarrisonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.
Adrienne J LindbladDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.
Hoan Linh BanhDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.
Denise Campbell-SchererDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.
Ben VandermeerAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 1C9.
G Michael AllanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, 6-10 University Terrace, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2T4.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the quality of health recommendations and claims made on popular medical talk shows.

designProspective observational study.

settingMainstream television media. SOURCES: Internationally syndicated medical television talk shows that air daily (The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors).

interventionsInvestigators randomly selected 40 episodes of each of The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors from early 2013 and identified and evaluated all recommendations made on each program. A group of experienced evidence reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team, evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from each show. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Percentage of recommendations that are supported by evidence as determined by a team of experienced evidence reviewers. Secondary outcomes included topics discussed, the number of recommendations made on the shows, and the types and details of recommendations that were made.

resultsWe could find at least a case study or better evidence to support 54% (95% confidence interval 47% to 62%) of the 160 recommendations (80 from each show). For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. For recommendations in The Doctors, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 53% on The Doctors. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode and The Doctors 11. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%) and on The Doctors was to consult a healthcare provider (18%). A specific benefit was described for 43% and 41% of the recommendations made on the shows respectively. The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 11% on The Doctors. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest accompanied 0.4% of recommendations.

conclusionsRecommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows. Additional details of methods used and changes made to study protocol.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineQuality of Health CareTelevisionClinical CompetenceFamous PersonsHumansPhysiciansPractice Guidelines as TopicProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25520234
PMCPMC4269523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.