ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2017
Media reporting of ProtecT: a disconnect in information dissemination?
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prostate cancer and social media.Nature reviews. Urology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the central role of the media in disseminating information to the public, we analyzed news coverage of the recent publication from ProtecT to assess views on treatment, the level of detail presented and degree of bias.
methodsWe applied a predefined search strategy to identify all news articles reporting on ProtecT within 30 days of its publication. Articles were independently assessed by two urologists and two lay persons using five-point Likert scales. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used.
resultsOf 33 unique articles identified, 20 (61%) conveyed negative views on definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa), while 29 (88%) expressed favorable views of active surveillance/monitoring (AM). Nevertheless, fewer than half of the articles described what AM entails (n=15; 46%) or the rate of treatment in the AM arm (n=12; 36%). Moreover, while 32 (97%) articles highlighted the absence of a difference in cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, only 17 (52%) mentioned the need for longer follow-up. A total of 17 (52%) articles had a notable degree of perceived bias (⩾4/5 on Likert scale), with shorter articles (P=0.02), articles covering few content areas (P=0.03) and articles that did not detail what AM entails (P=0.003) containing significantly increased bias.
conclusionsThe majority of news articles regarding ProtecT presented an adverse view of definitive treatment for localized PCa relative to AM, but failed to highlight key nuances of the trial. Healthcare professionals and the lay public should be cautious in acquiring medical news through the general media. Additionally, the urologic community must continue to improve the quality of disseminated information, for example, through proactively engaging with the media, through social media and/or through participation in continuing education lecture series, so as to guide the knowledge translation process, especially upon publication of such potentially influential studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28462943What 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.