ArticleBMC public health2017
The development and validation of an instrument to measure the quality of health research reports in the lay media.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Principles for Health-Related Information on Social Media (PRHISM) for Evaluating Breast Cancer Treatment Videos on YouTube: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Why is it important to implement meta-research in universities and institutes with medical research activities?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Exploring 'quality' in science communication online: Expert thoughts on how to assess and promote science communication quality in digital media contexts.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Awareness of diagnosis, treatment and risk of late effects in Chinese survivors of childhood cancer in Hong Kong.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Using Natural Language Processing to Examine the Uptake, Content, and Readability of Media Coverage of a Pan-Canadian Drug Safety Research Project: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
- Automatically Appraising the Credibility of Vaccine-Related Web Pages Shared on Social Media: A Twitter Surveillance Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Methods for the Selection of Covariates in Nutritional Epidemiology Studies: A Meta-Epidemiological Review.Current developments in nutrition · 2019Article
- Adverse effects of media reports on the treatment of osteoporosis.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2018Review
- The QUEST for quality online health information: validation of a short quantitative tool.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe media serves as an important link between medical research, as reported in scholarly sources, and the public and has the potential to act as a powerful tool to improve public health. However, concerns about the reliability of health research reports have been raised. Tools to monitor the quality of health research reporting in the media are needed to identify areas of weakness in health research reporting and to subsequently work towards the efficient use of the lay media as a public health tool through which the public's health behaviors can be improved.
methodsWe developed the Quality Index for health-related Media Reports (QIMR) as a tool to monitor the quality of health research reports in the lay media. The tool was developed according to themes generated from interviews with health journalists and researchers. Item and domain characteristics and scale reliability were assessed. The scale was correlated with a global quality assessment score and media report word count to provide evidence towards its construct validity.
resultsThe items and domains of the QIMR demonstrated acceptable validity and reliability. Items from the 'validity' domain were negatively skewed, suggesting possible floor effect. These items were not eliminated due to acceptable content and face validity. QIMR total scores produced a strong correlation with raters' global assessment and a moderate correlation with media report word count, providing evidence towards the construct validity of the instrument.
conclusionsThe results of this investigation indicate that QIMR can adequately measure the quality of health research reports, with acceptable reliability and validity.
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.