http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/325/7355/81
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
|||||||||||
 Collections under
which this article appears: Other
Journalology Other
Medical Informatics Information
in Practice (journal section) |
Christopher Bartlett
MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR
Correspondence to: M Egger, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine,
University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
egger@ispm.unibe.ch
Objective: To assess the characteristics of medical research
that is press released by general medical journals and reported
in newspapers.
Design: Longitudinal study.
Data sources: All original research articles published in
Lancet and BMJ during 1999 and 2000.
Main outcome measures: Inclusion of articles in Lancet or BMJ
press releases, and reporting of articles in Times or Sun
newspapers.
Results: Of 1193 original research articles, 517 (43%) were
highlighted in a press release and 81 (7%) were reported in one or
both newspapers. All articles covered in newspapers had been press
released. The probability of inclusion in press releases was similar
for observational studies and randomised controlled trials, but
trials were less likely to be covered in the newspapers (odds ratio
0.15 (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.37)). Good news and bad news
were equally likely to be press released, but bad news was more
likely to be reported in newspapers (1.74 (1.07 to 2.83)). Studies of
women's health, reproduction, and cancer were more likely to be press
released and covered in newspapers. Studies from industrialised
countries other than Britain were less likely to be reported in
newspapers (0.51 (0.31 to 0.82)), and no studies from developing
countries were covered.
Conclusions: Characteristics of articles were more strongly
associated with selection for reporting in newspapers than with
selection for inclusion in press releases, although each stage
influenced the reporting process. Newspapers underreported randomised
trials, emphasised bad news from observational studies, and ignored
research from developing countries.
|
What is already known on this topic There are two stages on the path to newspaper coverage What this study adds The net effect meant that newspapers emphasised results from observational studies, in particular studies of women's health, reproduction, and cancer Good news and bad news were equally likely to be press released, but bad news was more likely to be reported in newspaper articles |
Read all Rapid Responses
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
selection
by medical journal editors of articles to be press released and the
selection of newsworthy articles by journalists