scholarly journals Cancer In The News: Bias And Quality In Media Reporting Of Cancer Research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Amberg ◽  
Darren N. Saunders
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Online News ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
News Reports ◽  
News Sources ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractCancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalising and inaccurate reporting, giving rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. The main aim of this study was to investigate the nature and quality of cancer research covered in online news reports by four major news sources from USA, UK and Australia. We measured significant variation in reporting quality, and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, and in the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these finding for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science and appreciate the outcomes of publicly funded research, avoid undermining trust in science, and assist informed decision-making.

scholarly journals Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0242133
Author(s):  
Amanda Amberg ◽  
Darren N. Saunders
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Online News ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Cancer Types ◽  
Meta Analyses

Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research.

scholarly journals Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 433
Author(s):  
Matt Oxman ◽  
Lillebeth Larun ◽  
Giordano Pérez Gaxiola ◽  
Dima Alsaid ◽  
Anila Qasim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
News Media ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Online News ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Sampling Frame ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Many studies have assessed the quality of news reports about the effects of health interventions, but there has been no systematic review of such studies or meta-analysis of their results. We aimed to fill this gap (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095032). Methods We included studies that used at least one explicit, prespecified and generic criterion to assess the quality of news reports in print, broadcast, or online news media, and specified the sampling frame, and the selection criteria and technique. We assessed criteria individually for inclusion in the meta-analyses, excluding inappropriate criteria and criteria with inadequately reported results. We mapped and grouped criteria to facilitate evidence synthesis. Where possible, we extracted the proportion of news reports meeting the included criterion. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to estimate such proportions for individual criteria and some criteria groups, and to characterise heterogeneity across studies.  Results We included 44 primary studies in the qualitative summary, and 18 studies and 108 quality criteria in the meta-analyses. Many news reports gave an unbalanced and oversimplified picture of the potential consequences of interventions. A limited number mention or adequately address conflicts of interest (22%; 95% CI 7%-49%) (low certainty), alternative interventions (36%; 95% CI 26%-47%) (moderate certainty), potential harms (40%; 95% CI 23%-61%) (low certainty), or costs (18%; 95% CI 12%-28%) (moderate certainty), or quantify effects (53%; 95% CI 36%-69%) (low certainty) or report absolute effects (17%; 95% CI 4%-49%) (low certainty).  Discussion There is room for improving health news, but it is logically more important to improve the public’s ability to critically appraise health information and make judgements for themselves.

scholarly journals A Methodological and Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses about Chinese Medical Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Zipan Lyu ◽  
Zhongyu Huang ◽  
Fengbin Liu ◽  
Zhengkun Hou
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Protocol Registration ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective. To access the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) about Chinese medical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods. The PubMed, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical (CBM), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature considering the eligibility criteria. Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reports. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the level of evidence in each report. Results. Thirty-three SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. The OQAQ results showed that defects in the methodological quality of 17/32 reports were major, with scores of 3 points. Analyzing a single item as the object, search strategies (item 2), and risk of bias in individual studies (item 4) was considered poor. The AMSTAR 2 results showed that 25.4% of the items were not reported, and 7.8% of the items were only partially reported. The overall assessment of AMSTAR 2 showed the majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were of low/very low (31/33, 93.9%) methodological quality, with a lack of protocol registration and excluded study list. The PRISMA results showed that 19.9% of items were not reported, and 15.2% of items were only partially reported, due to a lack of protocol registration and study selection methods. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was generally poor. Evidence evaluation with GRADE showed that most (31/33) of the included studies had low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs/MAs about Chinese medical treatment for GERD is generally poor. The main problems included incomplete search strategies, risk of bias in individual studies, the lack of protocol registration and excluded study list, and incorrect study selection methods.

scholarly journals Developing a Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses (AGReMA) in Randomized Trials and Observational Studies

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hopin Lee ◽  
James McAuley ◽  
Aidan Gregory Cashin ◽  
Rob Herbert ◽  
Steven Kamper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Draft Report ◽  
Reporting Accuracy ◽  
Mediation Analyses ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Poor Reporting

Studies investigating causal mechanisms are becoming increasingly common.Despite growing numbers of publications and trialist embedding mechanismevaluations into randomised controlled trials and observational studies, the reporting accuracy and consistency of mechanism studies is suboptimal. The heterogeneity in the reporting of mechanism evaluations stifles systematic reviews, complicates meta-analyses, and limits transparency and replication. The aim of this initiative is to develop a reporting guideline for mechanism evaluations (mediation analyses). We also plan to develop an accompanying explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper. This project is the first initiative to address the issue of poor reporting quality of mechanism evaluations and has been registered on the “Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research” (EQUATOR) network.This initiative is being conducted in accordance with the Guidance for Developers ofHealth Research Reporting Guidelines. This draft report provides an update on theprogress of the project; summarising achievements to date and future work.Currently, multiple phases of the overall program are running in parallel, with eachphase informing the subsequent.

scholarly journals What cancer research makes the news? A quantitative analysis of online news stories that mention cancer studies

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0247553
Author(s):  
Laura Moorhead ◽  
Melinda Krakow ◽  
Lauren Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
News Media ◽  
Online News ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
News Stories ◽  
News Sources ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
The Subject

Journalists’ health and science reporting aid the public’s direct access to research through the inclusion of hyperlinks leading to original studies in peer-reviewed journals. While this effort supports the US-government mandate that research be made widely available, little is known about what research journalists share with the public. This cross-sectional exploratory study characterises US-government-funded research on cancer that appeared most frequently in news coverage and how that coverage varied by cancer type, disease incidence and mortality rates. The subject of analysis was 11436 research articles (published in 2016) on cancer funded by the US government and 642 news stories mentioning at least one of these articles. Based on Altmetric data, researchers identified articles via PubMed and characterised each based on the news media attention received online. Only 1.88% (n = 213) of research articles mentioning US government-funded cancer research included at least one mention in an online news publication. This is in contrast to previous research that found 16.8% (n = 1925) of articles received mention by online mass media publications. Of the 13 most common cancers in the US, 12 were the subject of at least one news mention; only urinary and bladder cancer received no mention. Traditional news sources included significantly more mentions of research on common cancers than digital native news sources. However, a general discrepancy exists between cancers prominent in news sources and those with the highest mortality rate. For instance, lung cancer accounted for the most deaths annually, while melanoma led to 56% less annual deaths; however, journalists cited research regarding these cancers nearly equally. Additionally, breast cancer received the greatest coverage per estimated annual death, while pancreatic cancer received the least coverage per death. Findings demonstrated a continued misalignment between prevalent cancers and cancers mentioned in online news media. Additionally, cancer control and prevention received less coverage from journalists than other cancer continuum stages, highlighting a continued underrepresentation of prevention-focused research. Results revealed a need for further scholarship regarding the role of journalists in research dissemination.

Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 001440292110508
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Tasia Brafford ◽  
Nicole A. Heller ◽  
Angela R. Crawford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Mathematics Interventions ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.

Whose News Can You Trust?

2014 ◽  
pp. 324-352
Author(s):  
Rick Malleus
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Online News ◽  
News Sources ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Online News Sites

This chapter proposes a framework for analyzing the credibility of online news sites, allowing diaspora populations to evaluate the credibility of online news about their home countries. A definition of credibility is established as a theoretical framework for analysis, and a framework of seven elements is developed based on the following elements: accuracy, authority, believability, quality of message construction, peer review, comparison, and corroboration. Later, those elements are applied to a variety of online news sources available to the Zimbabwean diaspora that serves as a case study for explaining the framework. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the framework in relation to some contextual circumstances of diaspora populations and presents some limitations of the framework as diaspora populations might actually apply the different elements.

Fake News Detection Using Deep Learning

2021 ◽  
pp. 440-451
Author(s):  
Varalakshmi Konagala ◽  
Shahana Bano
Keyword(s):  
Deep Learning ◽  
Uncertain Data ◽  
Online News ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Web Based ◽  
News Sources ◽  
N Gram

The engendering of uncertain data in ordinary access news sources, for example, news sites, web-based life channels, and online papers, have made it trying to recognize capable news sources, along these lines expanding the requirement for computational instruments ready to give into the unwavering quality of online substance. For instance, counterfeit news outlets were observed to be bound to utilize language that is abstract and enthusiastic. At the point when specialists are chipping away at building up an AI-based apparatus for identifying counterfeit news, there wasn't sufficient information to prepare their calculations; they did the main balanced thing. In this chapter, two novel datasets for the undertaking of phony news locations, covering distinctive news areas, distinguishing proof of phony substance in online news has been considered. N-gram model will distinguish phony substance consequently with an emphasis on phony audits and phony news. This was pursued by a lot of learning analyses to fabricate precise phony news identifiers and showed correctness of up to 80%.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine preventive antibiotic uses and management practices designed to prevent disease in livestock

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318
Author(s):  
Rachael Vriezen ◽  
Jan M. Sargeant ◽  
Ellen Vriezen ◽  
Charlotte B. Winder ◽  
Annette M. O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractTo implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document