Observational studyBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014
Televised medical talk shows--what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- A content analysis of 32 years of Shark Week documentaries.PloS one · 2022Article
- The three-step persuasion model on YouTube: A grounded theory study on persuasion in the protein supplements industry.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Article
- Ghost in the machine or monkey with a typewriter-generating titles for Christmas research articles inBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Observational
- Contested effects and chaotic policies: the 2020 story of (hydroxy) chloroquine for treating COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Severe Metabolic Acidosis: A Case of Triple Hit with Ketogenic Diet, Vinegar, and Metformin in an Obese Patient.Case reports in nephrology · 2020Article
- Adverse effects of media reports on the treatment of osteoporosis.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2018Review
- Social Medicine: Twitter in Healthcare.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Review
- Possibilities and Pitfalls of Social Media for Translational Medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Article
- Health-Seeking Influence Reflected by Online Health-Related Messages Received on Social Media: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Awareness and use of evidence-based medicine information among patients in Croatia: a nation-wide cross-sectional study.Croatian medical journal · 2017Article
- Laughing alongside the best of evidence: Family physicians change ideas about tools, knowledge, practice, and medicine.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016Article
- [L'humour en côte à côte avec les meilleures données probantes: Les médecins de famille changent d'idée à propos des outils, du savoir, de la pratique et de la médecine].Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016Article
- 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 · 2015Article
- Unproven stem cell-based interventions and achieving a compromise policy among the multiple stakeholders.BMC medical ethics · 2015Review
- Health Reporting in Print Media in Lebanon: Evidence, Quality and Role in Informing Policymaking.PloS one · 2015Article
- Parental Views of Promoting Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Overweight Preschoolers and School-Aged Children.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
- Men's Health-Related Magazines: A Retrospective Study of What They Recommend and the Evidence Addressing Their Recommendations.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.