Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medicine
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of “spin” in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients’/caregivers’ interpretation of treatment benefit

Authors: Isabelle Boutron, Romana Haneef, Amélie Yavchitz, Gabriel Baron, John Novack, Ivan Oransky, Gary Schwitzer, Philippe Ravaud

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

News stories represent an important source of information. We aimed to evaluate the impact of “spin” (i.e., misrepresentation of study results) in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients’/caregivers’ interpretation of treatment benefit.

Methods

We conducted three two-arm, parallel-group, Internet-based randomized trials (RCTs) comparing the interpretation of news stories reported with or without spin. Each RCT considered news stories reporting a different type of study: (1) pre-clinical study, (2) phase I/II non-RCT, and (3) phase III/IV RCT. For each type of study, we identified news stories reported with spin that had earned mention in the press. Two versions of the news stories were used: the version with spin and a version rewritten without spin. Participants were patients/caregivers involved in Inspire, a large online community of more than one million patients/caregivers. The primary outcome was participants’ interpretation assessed by one specific question “What do you think is the probability that ‘treatment X’ would be beneficial to patients?” (scale, 0 [very unlikely] to 10 [very likely]).

Results

For each RCT, 300 participants were randomly assigned to assess a news story with spin (n = 150) or without spin (n = 150), and 900 participants assessed a news story. Participants were more likely to consider that the treatment would be beneficial to patients when the news story was reported with spin. The mean (SD) score for the primary outcome for abstracts reported with and without spin for pre-clinical studies was 7.5 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.8) (mean difference [95% CI] 1.7 [1.0–2.3], p < 0.001); for phase I/II non-randomized trials, 7.6 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.7) (mean difference 1.8 [1.0–2.5], p < 0.001); and for phase III/IV RCTs, 7.2 (2.3) versus 4.9 (2.8) (mean difference 2.3 [1.4–3.2], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Spin in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments affects patients’/caregivers’ interpretation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03094078, NCT03094104, NCT03095586
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Sharma V, Dowd MD, Swanson DS, Slaughter AJ, Simon SD. Influence of the news media on diagnostic testing in the emergency department. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157(3):257–60.CrossRef
2.
Grilli R, Ramsay C, Minozzi S: Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002(1):CD000389.
3.
Chen X, Siu LL. Impact of the media and the internet on oncology: survey of cancer patients and oncologists in Canada. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(23):4291–7.CrossRef
4.
5.
6.
7.
Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, Henry D, Lee K, Watkins J, Mah C, Soumerai SB. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(22):1645–50.CrossRef
8.
Boutron I, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2613–9.CrossRef
9.
Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308.CrossRef
10.
Hochman M, Hochman S, Bor D, McCormick D. News media coverage of medication research: reporting pharmaceutical company funding and use of generic medication names. Jama. 2008;300(13):1544–50.CrossRef
11.
Schwitzer G. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med. 2008;5(5):e95.CrossRef
12.
13.
Haneef R, Lazarus C, Ravaud P, Yavchitz A, Boutron I. Interpretation of results of studies evaluating an intervention highlighted in Google Health News: a cross-sectional study of news. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140889.CrossRef
14.
Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, Williams A, Venetis CA, Davies A, Ogden J, Whelan L, Hughes B, Dalton B, et al. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ. 2014;349:g7015.CrossRef
15.
Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, Williams A, Bott L, Adams R, Venetis CA, Whelan L, Hughes B, Chambers CD. Exaggerations and caveats in press releases and health-related science news. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168217.CrossRef
16.
Bubela T. Science communication in transition: genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures. Clin Genet. 2006;70(5):445–50.CrossRef
17.
Bubela TM, Caulfield TA. Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. CMAJ. 2004;170(9):1399–407.CrossRef
18.
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4120–6.CrossRef
19.
Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. Jama. 2010;303(20):2058–64.CrossRef
20.
Haneef R, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Baron G, Oransky I, Schwitzer G, Boutron I. Interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin: protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of 16 randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e017425.CrossRef
21.
Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin”. Radiology. 2013;267(2):581–8.CrossRef
22.
Lazarus C, Haneef R, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:85.CrossRef
23.
Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, Moher D, Hrobjartsson A, Lasserson T, Boutron I. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:56–65.CrossRef
24.
Schwitzer G. Addressing tensions when popular media and evidence-based care collide. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 3):S3.CrossRef
25.
Schwitzer G. A guide to reading health care news stories. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1183–6.CrossRef
26.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Andrews A, Stukel TA. Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:d8164.CrossRef
27.
Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, Geller G, Gupta A, Hampel J, Hyde-Lay R, et al. Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27(6):514–8.CrossRef
28.
29.
Caulfield T, Condit C. Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(3–4):209–17.CrossRef
30.
Matthews A, Herrett E, Gasparrini A, Van Staa T, Goldacre B, Smeeth L, Bhaskaran K. Impact of statin related media coverage on use of statins: interrupted time series analysis with UK primary care data. BMJ. 2016;353:i3283.CrossRef
31.
32.
Fornai F, Longone P, Cafaro L, Kastsiuchenka O, Ferrucci M, Manca ML, Lazzeri G, Spalloni A, Bellio N, Lenzi P, et al. Lithium delays progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(6):2052–7.CrossRef
33.
Wicks P, Vaughan TE, Massagli MP, Heywood J. Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(5):411–4.CrossRef
34.
35.
Oransky I. How publish or perish promotes inaccuracy in science -- and journalism. AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(12):1172–5.CrossRef
36.
Nisbet MC, Mooney C. Science and society. Framing science. Science. 2007;316(5821):56.CrossRef
37.
38.
Metadata
Title
Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of “spin” in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients’/caregivers’ interpretation of treatment benefit
Authors
Isabelle Boutron
Romana Haneef
Amélie Yavchitz
Gabriel Baron
John Novack
Ivan Oransky
Gary Schwitzer
Philippe Ravaud
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1330-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medicine 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Growth faltering is associated with altered brain functional connectivity and cognitive outcomes in urban Bangladeshi children exposed to early adversity

Correspondence

Advanced cell therapeutics are changing the clinical landscape: will mesenchymal stromal cells be a part of it?

Correspondence

Monitoring progress in reducing maternal mortality using verbal autopsy methods in vital registration systems: what can we conclude about specific causes of maternal death?

Research article

Vitamin D and cause-specific vascular disease and mortality: a Mendelian randomisation study involving 99,012 Chinese and 106,911 European adults

Opinion

Three myths about risk thresholds for prediction models

Research article

A rapid research needs appraisal methodology to identify evidence gaps to inform clinical research priorities in response to outbreaks—results from the Lassa fever pilot