ArticleThe oncologist2016
Media Reporting of Practice-Changing Clinical Trials in Oncology: A North American Perspective.
Article in The oncologist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Social Media and Internet Resources for Patients with Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN).Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMedia reporting of clinical trials impacts patient-oncologist interactions. We sought to characterize the accuracy of media and Internet reporting of practice-changing clinical trials in oncology. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe first media articles referencing 17 practice-changing clinical trials were collected from 4 media outlets: newspapers, cable news, cancer websites, and industry websites. Measured outcomes were media reporting score, social media score, and academic citation score. The media reporting score was a measure of completeness of information detailed in media articles as scored by a 15-point scoring instrument. The social media score represented the ubiquity of social media presence referencing 17 practice-changing clinical trials in cancer as determined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in its annual report, entitled Clinical Cancer Advances 2012; social media score was calculated from Twitter, Facebook, and Google searches. The academic citation score comprised total citations from Google Scholar plus the Scopus database, which represented the academic impact per clinical cancer advance.
resultsFrom 170 media articles, 107 (63%) had sufficient data for analysis. Cohen's κ coefficient demonstrated reliability of the media reporting score instrument with a coefficient of determination of 94%. Per the media reporting score, information was most complete from industry, followed by cancer websites, newspapers, and cable news. The most commonly omitted items, in descending order, were study limitations, exclusion criteria, conflict of interest, and other. The social media score was weakly correlated with academic citation score.
conclusionMedia outlets appear to have set a low bar for coverage of many practice-changing advances in oncology, with reports of scientific breakthroughs often omitting basic study facts and cautions, which may mislead the public. The media should be encouraged to use a standardized reporting template and provide accessible references to original source information whenever feasible.
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.