ReviewZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2026
[Modern knowledge transfer-From the perspective of medical journalism].
Review in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alongside the editorial control mechanisms of traditional media, such as fact-checking and source verification, medical journalism ensures the quality of medical knowledge transfer, similar to the peer-review process of professional journals. However, this role, which is central to a democracy, is increasingly threatened by the rise of the internet and social media. Today, most news from science and medicine reaches citizens as "end consumers" of information directly, i.e., without intermediary quality control according to established journalistic standards. Deteriorating working conditions have forced many medical journalists to move to other occupational fields. The loss of quality control in medical knowledge transfer has become a danger to society. It has never been so difficult to distinguish between reliable information and misinformation or disinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41811462What 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.