Monitoring the quality of medical news reporting: early experience with media doctor
Monitoring the quality of medical news reporting: early experience with media doctor
复制标题
DOI：
10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06992.x
复制
发表时间：
2005-08-15
影响因子：
11.4
通讯作者：
Henry, DA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Smith, DE;Wilson, AJ;Henry, DA
目的：分析医学新闻报道监测网站Media Doctor上发表的医学新闻文章的评论。设计和设置：描述性总结2004年2月1日至9月1日期间媒体医生网站的运营情况。主要结果测量：文章中描述的医疗干预的10项评估标准的共识评分（新奇，在澳大利亚的可用性，给出的替代治疗方案，“疾病传播”的证据，给出的客观支持性证据，效益的量化，危害的覆盖范围，成本的覆盖范围，独立的信息来源，结果：在研究期间，104篇新闻文章被媒体医生报道。在线和印刷媒体的得分都很低，尽管印刷媒体上级：平均总得分为56.1%，印刷媒体为40.1%，在线媒体为15.9个百分点（95% CI，8.3-23.6）。最大的差异被认为是使用独立的信息来源，量化的好处和覆盖面的潜在harms.Conclusions：澳大利亚奠定新闻报道的医疗进步，特别是在线新闻服务，是穷人。如果期刊和研究人员更积极地与新闻界和公众沟通，情况可能会有所改善。
Objective: To analyse the reviews of medical news articles posted on media doctor, a medical news-story monitoring website.Design and setting: A descriptive summary of operating the media doctor website between 1 February and 1 September 2004.Main outcome measures: Consensus scores for 10 assessment criteria for the medical intervention described in the article (novelty, availability in Australia, alternative treatment options given, evidence of "disease mongering", objective supportive evidence given, quantification of benefits, coverage of harms, coverage of costs, independent sources of information, and excessive reliance on a press release); cumulative article rating scores for major media outlets.Results: 104 news articles were featured on media doctor in the study period. Both online and print media scored poorly, although the print media were superior: mean total scores 56.1% satisfactory for print and 40.1% for online; percentage points difference 15.9 (95% Cl, 8.3-23.6). The greatest differences were seen for the use of independent information sources, quantification of benefits and coverage of potential harms.Conclusions: Australian lay news reporting of medical advances, particularly by the online news services, is poor. This might improve if journals and researchers became more active in communicating with the press and the public.