ReviewLa Radiologia medica2026
Radiotherapy in Italian media: (mis)information, patients' perception and medical career choices.
Review in La Radiologia medica, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study is to analyze how radiotherapy (RT) is perceived and portrayed by Italian media and to determine whether there is any bias or misinformation about. The study will also assess the influence of these perceptions on patients' and medical students' decisions to specialize in radiotherapy.
methodsA comprehensive review was conducted of 436 articles published in "Corriere della Sera" between 1895 and 2023, using keywords such as "radiotherapy" and "radiation." The articles were classified into positive, neutral, and negative categories, and the dominant themes and trends were analyzed.
resultsArticles on radiotherapy (RT) have significantly increased since year 2000, with a notable rise in negative publications focused on toxicities and alleged malpractice. Out of 436 articles, 74 were negative, with this trend growing in recent years, emphasizing risks over benefits in media coverage of RT.
conclusionsThe influence of media on public perception of RT is significant and influences clinical and therapeutic decisions. It is essential that the RT community continues working with media and communication professionals to promote accurate information about the benefits and advances of RT for the patients and for healthcare professionals. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study highlights the importance of accurate media portrayal of RT to improve public understanding of its benefits. Collaboration between radiation oncologists and media can help disseminate positive outcomes and dispel harmful myths to ensure a balanced and informed perception of RT.
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.