A new analysis has affirmed what many in the science audience already knew; mainstream media prefer weak observational studies. It's why you're reading this article here instead of the New York Times.
And that is not just in regards to social psychology correlations made using surveys of college students or sociology mysticism, it happens in medical coverage too. The examination found that observational studies get far better coverage than actual randomized controlled trials, which are what should really be important to most people.
The authors compared the coverage of 75 medical/clinical journal articles in the top five newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News)(1) against 75 articles in the top five medical journals by impact factor during the same period (ending 2011). They found that the preference for observational studies over clinical trials was clear; 75% versus 47%.
That's no surprise, a lot of clinical trial papers will be too boring or incremental to get press coverage - journalism costs money and editors know they need to provide bang for the buck. What was a concern was that newspaper journalists and editors seemed to really prefer studies that had weak methodology. So newspaper headlines like “Statin-takers Less Likely to Die from Cancer” failed to ever note that they were drawing dubious causal conclusions from observational data. That sort of thing is fun for social sciences but in medical coverage it can be dangerous - and with limited space, it means the public isn't getting coverage of real medicine.
Distribution of study design ratings for clinical investigations from the media and medical journals. (A) The media covers inferior quality study designs than those published in (B) high impact medical journals, p = 0.003. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085355
And, the authors say, it is systemic bias. Not bias as in that newspapers prefer one particular type of article but that they prefer things that make for catchy headlines, even if the methodology is suspect. They note the obvious impact; after media coverage of invasive group A streptococcal (GAS) disease, testing by worried parents for “the flesh eating bacteria” went up. We know what that does to health care costs.
It isn't just on the public side. What happens in the research community when observational studies get a lot of coverage? More people go into the area and that means more taxpayer money spent on studying Acai berries and gluten-free foods and whatever else makes the LA Times science and health section this month.
Obviously it's a tricky balance; flesh-eating bacteria is likely more interesting than lots of other studies that are released every day. But it would also help if journalists read more than press releases.
Citation: Selvaraj S, Borkar DS, Prasad V (2014) Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? PLoS ONE 9(1): e85355. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085355
(1) PLOS One insists its 10,000 articles per year are peer reviewed but editing, much less peer review, would have caught the mistake in calling one of those top 5 newspapers, the San Jose Mercury News, by the wrong name, the San Jose Mercury Times. At least they didn't also list the New York Today and USA Journal.
In a journal article about suspect coverage of journal articles, this is irony.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- 4 Things Needed To Make The Perfect Cup Of Coffee
- "There are no Greenpeace GMOs. Go away with your bullcrap and take your GMOs with you. ..."
- "Talk about manned missions to Mars is foolishness until we've established a robot colony that has..."
- "Mars is basically a dead rock. Any life that can take hold there, good for it. Now the oceans of..."
- "Most people like average, because average is most predictable - just as frequent words and symmetrical..."
- "Save Lives With Golden Rice..."
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a way off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Mars bars for brain health? Not so fast
- Scientists rebuff Center for Food Safety report alleging chemicals in infant soy milk
- Lou Gehrig's disease study: Renewing brain's aging support cells may help neurons survive
- Smithsonian scientist discovers populations of rare songbird in surprising new habitat
- National initiative shows multisystem approaches to reduce diabetes disparities
- Model by NIH grantees explains why HIV prevention dosing differs by sex
- Seeing dinosaur feathers in a new light