Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29151047›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin: protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of 16 randomised controlled trials.

Romana Haneef, Amélie Yavchitz, Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Ivan Oransky, Gary Schwitzer, Isabelle Boutron

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Romana HaneefMETHODS team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France.
Amélie YavchitzMETHODS team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France.
Philippe RavaudMETHODS team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France.
Gabriel BaronCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
Ivan OranskyArthur Carter Journalism Institute, New York University, New York, USA.
Gary SchwitzerSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Isabelle BoutronMETHODS team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe aim to compare the interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin. 'Spin' is defined as a misrepresentation of study results, regardless of motive (intentionally or unintentionally) that overemphasises the beneficial effects of the intervention and overstates safety compared with that shown by the results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have planned a series of 16 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to perform a prospective meta-analysis. We will select a sample of health news items reporting the results of four types of study designs, evaluating the effect of pharmacological treatment and containing the highest amount of spin in the headline and text. News items reporting four types of studies will be included: (1) preclinical studies; (2) phase I/II (non-randomised) trials; (3) RCTs and (4) observational studies. We will rewrite the selected news items and remove the spin. The original news and rewritten news will be appraised by four types of populations: (1) French-speaking patients; (2) French-speaking general public; (3) English-speaking patients and (4) English-speaking general public. Each RCT will explore the interpretation of news items reporting one of the four study designs by each type of population and will include a sample size of 300 participants. The primary outcome will be participants' interpretation of the benefit of treatment after reading the news items: (What do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? (scale, 0 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely)).This study will evaluate the impact of spin on the interpretation of health news reporting results of studies by patients and the general public. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has obtained ethics approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (INSERM) (registration no: IRB00003888). The description of all the steps and the results of this prospective meta-analysis will be available online and will be disseminated as a published article. On the completion of this study, the results will be sent to all participants. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017058941.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMass MediaHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicgeneral publichealth newsmeta-analysispatientsrandomized controlled trialsspin

Identifiers

PMID29151047
PMCPMC5702017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.