ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021
[A modular model for quality assessment in medical and nutritional journalism].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. 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.
- [Modern knowledge transfer-From the perspective of medical journalism].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2026Review
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe quality of medical articles in journalism has a central role in informed decision-making by patients as well as by political, economic and social players, but also to general "health literacy". Therefore, quality standards that take into account basic scientific and journalistic principles, but are also scalable to specific health-related topics (such as medicine, nutrition and environment) are particularly relevant. MATERIALS AND
methodsStarting from an internationally established catalogue in the framework of the "media doctor project", criteria for good medical journalism were analysed, reclassified and completed on the basis of theoretical concepts and practical applicability. In parallel, existing criteria from medical journalism were transferred to an adapted criteria catalogue for reporting on nutrition.
resultsA consensus was reached on a catalogue of criteria modularised into general journalistic, general science journalistic and specific medical journalistic aspects, which is published here for the first time in a scientific paper. With some rare exceptions, quality criteria for medical journalism could be well adapted to nutritional topics. Based on the two catalogues, further media contributions have been regularly evaluated.
conclusionsThe advanced modularisation of the criteria catalogues facilitates their applicability and possibly their extension to other disciplines and for use by medical doctors as well as by laypersons. While medical journalism is strongly oriented towards the criteria of scientific evidence, the role of academic studies and experts versus anecdotal evidence should be further investigated for nutritional journalism.
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.