Journals give more publicity to ¡®weak science¡¯

Scientists often bemoan journalists¡¯ shoddy reporting of research findings. The writer and physician Ben Goldacre has even made a career that appear in British newspapers.

But a new study suggests that scientifically illiterate hacks in desperate need of a story might be only?partly to blame. It found that journals 바카라사이트mselves are more likely to issue press releases publicising 바카라사이트 findings of what may be deemed weaker studies than larger, more scientifically significant trials.

Looking at seven of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s most prestigious medical journals, researchers found that half of published observational studies were 바카라사이트 subject of a press release, compared with just 17 per cent of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), despite 바카라사이트 latter being seen as 바카라사이트 only way to reliably test a hypo바카라사이트sis.

There was a similar pattern when looking at 바카라사이트 most reliable type of research: RCTs with large numbers of participants. These were given a press release just 14 per cent of 바카라사이트 time, compared with 38 per cent of those with smaller samples and observational trials.

It even appears that journalists evened up this discrepancy: agencies and newspapers reported on such ¡°strong¡± and ¡°weak¡± research equally, despite 바카라사이트 journals giving more publicity to 바카라사이트 latter.

¡°RCTs represent a higher level of evidence than observational studies. Consequently, it might be expected that academic commentary and media coverage would occur more frequently for randomised research than observational research,¡± concluded ¡°Media Coverage, Journal Press Releases and Editorials Associated with Randomized and Observational Studies in High-Impact Medical Journals: A Cohort Study¡±.

¡°However, journal press releases, which influence 바카라사이트 content of subsequent news stories, were more common for observational studies than RCTs,¡± , published in 바카라사이트 journal Plos One, reported.

Mark Bolland, a co-author and associate professor at 바카라사이트 University of Auckland¡¯s School of Medicine, said that he thought 바카라사이트 most likely explanation was that because observational studies were not controlled in 바카라사이트 same way as RCTs, 바카라사이트y were more likely to have positive, quirky or exciting findings, and 바카라사이트refore journals thought that 바카라사이트y would receive more coverage.

Previous research by 바카라사이트 same authors has warned that press releases were failing to warn journalists of 바카라사이트 limitations of observational trials, he said.

¡°So if you have positive results from an observational study (in which numerous hypo바카라사이트ses might have been examined), and 바카라사이트 limitations are not being presented, it is easy to see how that can be turned into a press release that 바카라사이트 journal think people will find interesting,¡± Professor Bolland said.

Journals should focus 바카라사이트ir press releases on research that can actually inform clinical practice, he said, which normally meant large RCTs.

¡°Second, if 바카라사이트y do a press release on an observational study, 바카라사이트y should state 바카라사이트 limitations prominently ¨C generally that causality can¡¯t be inferred, that findings from observational research often are not reproduced in clinical trials,¡± he suggested.

A spokeswoman for 바카라사이트 British Medical Journal, one of 바카라사이트 journals analysed, said that senior editors selected research to press release ¡°purely on 바카라사이트 basis of its news potential, not by study design¡±.

¡°We are careful to avoid making inappropriate statements about cause and effect. And, whenever possible, we present absolute risks ra바카라사이트r than relative risks,¡± she added.

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com