• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Pharmacists Association: JAPhA >Evaluation of accuracy of health studies reported in mass media.
【24h】

Evaluation of accuracy of health studies reported in mass media.

机译：大众媒体报道的健康研究准确性的评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate communication of clinical research in the written media for completeness and accuracy. DESIGN: Observational assessment. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Content of media articles discussing randomized controlled trials was assessed by three reviewers on the basis of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria modified for the mass media. Reports from October 1 through December 31, 2002, published in the top two U.S. daily newspapers (USA Today and Wall Street Journal), weekly news magazines (Time and Newsweek), and daily news Web sources (CNN.com and MSNBC.com) and the corresponding published RCTs were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total score and score in 10 specific content areas, leading to classification of coverage as poor, fair, or excellent. RESULTS: A total of 60 media reports discussing results of 25 RCTs appeared in these media during the study period. All reports were categorized as fair, and no content areawas rated excellent. Several content areas received poor rankings in all and/or most media, including reporting of adverse effects, outcomes data, and statistical tests used. Media reports written by newswire services were rated more highly than were those prepared by nonnewswire services, but only 1 of 10 criteria had statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: Mass media reports of RCTs are often incomplete. This type of reporting may misinform the lay public and may lead to questions about the applicability of the results to individual patients.
机译：目的：评估书面媒体上临床研究的传播的完整性和准确性。设计：观察评估。地点：美国。参加者：不适用。干预措施：讨论随机对照试验的媒体文章的内容由三位审阅者根据针对大众媒体修改的综合报道标准（CONSORT）标准进行评估。从2002年10月1日到2002年12月31日的报告在美国排名前两的日报（今日美国和华尔街日报），每周新闻杂志（时间和新闻周刊）和每日新闻Web来源（CNN.com和MSNBC.com）上发表并分析了相应的已发布RCT。主要观察指标：总分和10个特定内容领域的得分，导致覆盖率分为差，中等或优秀。结果：在研究期间，共有60篇媒体报道讨论了25篇RCT的结果。所有报告均归类为公平报告，没有内容被评为优秀。在所有和/或大多数媒体中，几个内容领域的排名很低，包括不良影响的报告，结果数据和使用的统计测试。新闻专线服务撰写的媒体报道的评级高于非新闻专线服务撰写的报道，但10条标准中只有1条具有统计学上的显着差异。结论：RCT的大众媒体报道往往不完整。这种类型的报告可能会误导非专业人士，并可能导致有关结果对个别患者的适用性的疑问。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号