Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782941›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Making headlines: an analysis of US government-funded cancer research mentioned in online media.

Lauren A Maggio, Chelsea L Ratcliff, Melinda Krakow, Laura L Moorhead, Asura Enkhbayar, Juan Pablo Alperin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Validation of Self-reported Cancer Diagnoses Using Medicare Diagnostic Claims in the US Health and Retirement Study, 2000-2016.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Lauren A MaggioUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2997-6133
Chelsea L RatcliffUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Melinda KrakowNational Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Laura L MoorheadSan Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA.
Asura EnkhbayarSimon Fraser University at Harbour Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3934-026X
Juan Pablo AlperinSimon Fraser University at Harbour Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9344-7439

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo characterise how online media coverage of journal articles on cancer funded by the US government varies by cancer type and stage of the cancer control continuum and to compare the disease prevalence rates with the amount of funded research published for each cancer type and with the amount of media attention each receives.

designA cross-sectional study.

settingThe United States.

participantsThe subject of analysis was 11 436 journal articles on cancer funded by the US government published in 2016. These articles were identified via PubMed and characterised as receiving online media attention based on data provided by Altmetric.

results16.8% (n=1925) of articles published on US government-funded research were covered in the media. Published journal articles addressed all common cancers. Frequency of journal articles differed substantially across the common cancers, with breast cancer (n=1284), lung cancer (n=630) and prostate cancer (n=586) being the subject of the most journal articles. Roughly one-fifth to one-fourth of journal articles within each cancer category received online media attention. Media mentions were disproportionate to actual burden of each cancer type (ie, incidence and mortality), with breast cancer articles receiving the most media mentions. Scientific articles also covered the stages of the cancer continuum to varying degrees. Across the 13 most common cancer types, 4.4% (n=206) of articles focused on prevention and control, 11.7% (n=550) on diagnosis and 10.7% (n=502) on therapy.

conclusionsFindings revealed a mismatch between prevalent cancers and cancers highlighted in online media. Further, journal articles on cancer control and prevention received less media attention than other cancer continuum stages. Media mentions were not proportional to actual public cancer burden nor volume of scientific publications in each cancer category. Results highlight a need for continued research on the role of media, especially online media, in research dissemination.

Indexed as

BibliometricsFinancing, GovernmentInternetJournal Impact FactorBiomedical ResearchCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNeoplasmsUnited Statescancergrant fundinginformation technologymediamedical journalism

Identifiers

PMID30782941
PMCPMC6368156

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.