ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025
An Analysis of Print and Online Media's Representation of Prostate Cancer in Public Figures.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Print and online media play a crucial role in shaping public understanding of diseases like prostate cancer (PCa), particularly through reporting on public figures. However, such media coverage can introduce bias by providing incomplete or non-evidence-based information. This study aimed to assess potential bias by applying a standardized rubric to articles discussing PCa in public figures. Articles were sourced from LexisNexis® using the terms "prostate cancer" and the name of a public figure diagnosed with the disease. The study analyzed 147 articles covering 49 public figures, selected based on relevance from top-circulation publications between 1994 and 2024. Of these, 95.9% had unbiased titles, 35.4% included expert quotes, and 27.2% mentioned risk factors such as age, race, and family history. However, 25.9% of the articles exhibited bias supporting PCa screening, and only 16.3% referenced scientific studies. Additionally, among the 45 articles published when shared decision-making (SDM) was the standard of care for screening decisions, only one referenced this concept. Thus, while titles were generally unbiased, statements supporting screening, low rates of scientific referencing, and minimal reference to SDM highlight limitations of this reporting that may bias readers' understanding of prostate cancer detection and treatment. These findings may provide a window into how reporting on medical conditions in public figures, which can influence readers' perceptions of disease, can improve in quality and completeness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39951199What 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.