Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers
Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0172650
复制
发表时间：
2017-02-21
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Gonon, Francois
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dumas-Mallet, Estelle;Smith, Andy;Gonon, Francois
目的探讨报纸报道的生物医学关联研究的复制效度。方法：我们使用了包含306篇meta分析文章的4723项主要研究的数据库。这些研究将风险因素与三个生物医学领域的疾病联系起来，即精神病学、神经病学和四种躯体疾病。他们被分为生活方式类（如吸烟）和非生活方式类（如遗传风险）。使用数据库Dow Jones Factiva，我们调查了每项研究的报纸报道。通过与相应的荟萃分析的比较来评估其复制效度。结果在我们数据库的5029篇文章中，1561篇报纸文章报道了156篇主要研究（其中63篇是生活方式研究）和5篇荟萃分析文章。随着发表每项科学研究的期刊的影响因子的增加，被覆盖研究的百分比和每项研究的报纸文章数量都大幅增加。报纸几乎同等地报道了最初（5/39 12.8%）和随后（58/600 9.7%）的生活方式研究。相比之下，最初的非生活方式研究的覆盖率（48/366 13.1%）高于随后的研究（45/3718 1.2%）。报纸从未报道过报道无效发现的最初研究，也很少报道随后的无效观察结果。在报纸报道的156项研究中，只有48.7%得到了相应的meta分析的证实。最初的非生活方式研究的证实率（16/48）低于随后的研究（29/45）和生活方式研究（31/63）。报纸报道的精神病学研究（10/38）比神经学研究（26/41）或躯体研究（40/77）得到证实的次数要少。这与更大范围的精神病学初步研究相关。虽然有234篇报纸文章报道了35项后来被证实的初步研究，但只有4篇新闻文章报道了随后的无效发现，并提到了对最初主张的反驳。记者优先报道最初的发现，尽管这些发现经常与荟萃分析相矛盾，但当发现不被证实时，记者很少告知公众。
ObjectiveTo investigate the replication validity of biomedical association studies covered by newspapers.MethodsWe used a database of 4723 primary studies included in 306 meta-analysis articles. These studies associated a risk factor with a disease in three biomedical domains, psychiatry, neurology and four somatic diseases. They were classified into a lifestyle category (e.g. smoking) and a non-lifestyle category (e.g. genetic risk). Using the database Dow Jones Factiva, we investigated the newspaper coverage of each study. Their replication validity was assessed using a comparison with their corresponding meta-analyses.ResultsAmong the 5029 articles of our database, 156 primary studies (of which 63 were lifestyle studies) and 5 meta-analysis articles were reported in 1561 newspaper articles. The percentage of covered studies and the number of newspaper articles per study strongly increased with the impact factor of the journal that published each scientific study. Newspapers almost equally covered initial (5/39 12.8%) and subsequent (58/600 9.7%) lifestyle studies. In contrast, initial non-lifestyle studies were covered more often (48/366 13.1%) than subsequent ones (45/3718 1.2%). Newspapers never covered initial studies reporting null findings and rarely reported subsequent null observations. Only 48.7% of the 156 studies reported by newspapers were confirmed by the corresponding meta-analyses. Initial non-lifestyle studies were less often confirmed (16/48) than subsequent ones (29/45) and than lifestyle studies (31/63). Psychiatric studies covered by newspapers were less often confirmed (10/38) than the neurological (26/41) or somatic (40/77) ones. This is correlated to an even larger coverage of initial studies in psychiatry. Whereas 234 newspaper articles covered the 35 initial studies that were later disconfirmed, only four press articles covered a subsequent null finding and mentioned the refutation of an initial claim.ConclusionJournalists preferentially cover initial findings although they are often contradicted by meta-analyses and rarely inform the public when they are disconfirmed.