Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26473725›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News.

Romana Haneef, Clement Lazarus, Philippe Ravaud, Amélie Yavchitz, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Spin in dental publications: a scoping review.Brazilian oral research · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Resveratrol and Wine: An Overview of Thirty Years in the Digital News.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 2020 vision? A retrospective study of time-bound curative claims in British and Irish newspapers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  17. Is rapid scientific publication also high quality? Bibliometric analysis of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. COVID-19: Pan(info)demic.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2020
    Review
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

5 authors.

Romana HaneefINSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
Clement LazarusINSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
Philippe RavaudINSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, United States of America.
Amélie YavchitzINSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronINSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France; French Cochrane Center, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMass media through the Internet is a powerful means of disseminating medical research. We aimed to determine whether and how the interpretation of research results is misrepresented by the use of "spin" in the health section of Google News. Spin was defined as specific way of reporting, from whatever motive (intentional or unintentional), to emphasize that the beneficial effect of the intervention is greater than that shown by the results.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of news highlighted in the health section of US, UK and Canada editions of Google News between July 2013 and January 2014. We searched for news items for 3 days a week (i.e., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) during 6 months and selected a sample of 130 news items reporting a scientific article evaluating the effect of an intervention on human health.

resultsIn total, 78% of the news did not provide a full reference or electronic link to the scientific article. We found at least one spin in 114 (88%) news items and 18 different types of spin in news. These spin were mainly related to misleading reporting (59%) such as not reporting adverse events that were reported in the scientific article (25%), misleading interpretation (69%) such as claiming a causal effect despite non-randomized study design (49%) and overgeneralization/misleading extrapolation (41%) of the results such as extrapolating a beneficial effect from an animal study to humans (21%). We also identified some new types of spin such as highlighting a single patient experience for the success of a new treatment instead of focusing on the group results.

conclusionsInterpretation of research results was frequently misrepresented in the health section of Google News. However, we do not know whether these spin were from the scientific articles themselves or added in the news.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationInternetModels, TheoreticalSocial MediaAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID26473725
PMCPMC4608738

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.