 |
|
Media Coverage of Scientific Meetings
Too Much, Too Soon?
Lisa M. Schwartz, MD,MS;
Steven Woloshin, MD,MS;
Linda Baczek, BBA
JAMA. 2002;287:2859-2863.
Context Although they are preliminary and have undergone only limited peer review, research abstracts at scientific meetings may receive prominent attention in the news media. We sought to describe news coverage of abstracts, characterize the research, and determine subsequent full publication in the medical literature.
Methods We searched Lexis-Nexis to identify news stories printed in the 2 months following 5 scientific meetings held in 1998 (12th World AIDS Conference, American Heart Association, Society for Neuroscience, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the Radiological Society of North America). We searched MEDLINE and contacted authors to determine subsequent publication in the medical literature within 3-3.5 years of the meetings.
Results A total of 252 news stories reported on 147 research abstracts (average, 50 per meeting); 16% of the covered abstracts were nonhuman studies, 24% randomized trials, and 59% observational studies. Twenty-one percent of the human studies were small (ie, involving <30 subjects). In the 3 years after the meetings, 50% of the abstracts were published in high-impact journals (based on Institute for Scientific Information ratings), 25% in low-impact journals, and 25% remained unpublished. The publication record of the 39 abstracts receiving front-page newspaper coverage was almost identical to the overall rate. Meeting organizers issued press releases for 43 abstracts; these were somewhat more likely to receive prominent news coverage (35% covered on front page vs 23%, P = .14), but were no more likely to be published.
Conclusions Abstracts at scientific meetings receive substantial attention in the high-profile media. A substantial number of the studies remain unpublished, precluding evaluation in the scientific community.
Author Affiliations: VA Outcomes Group, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt (Drs Schwartz and Woloshin, and Ms Baczek); Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH (Drs Schwartz and Woloshin); and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH (Drs Schwartz and Woloshin).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
What's the rush? The dissemination and adoption of preliminary research results.
Woloshin and Schwartz
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:372-373.
FULL TEXT
HIV/AIDS prevention in Uganda: why has it worked?
Genuis and Genuis
Postgrad. Med. J. 2005;81:615-617.
FULL TEXT
Symposium Evaluating the Flood of Orthopaedic Media and Marketing Information
Purvis et al.
JBJS 2005;87:1392-1398.
FULL TEXT
The Flow of Scientific Knowledge from Lab to the Lay Public: The Case of Genetically Modified Food
Mcinerney et al.
Science Communication 2004;26:44-74.
ABSTRACT
Advantages and Potential Dangers of Presentation Before Publication: Third in a Series on Editorship
Bressler et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1045-1048.
FULL TEXT
Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers
Bubela and Caulfield
CMAJ 2004;170:1399-1407.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Media Matter: A Call for Straightforward Medical Reporting
Schwartz and Woloshin
ANN INTERN MED 2004;140:226-228.
FULL TEXT
Publication of Full Reports of Clinical Trials
Mann
JCO 2003;21:4254-4255.
FULL TEXT
Assessing Mass Media Reporting of Disease-Related Genetic Discoveries: Development of an Instrument and Initial Findings
Mountcastle-Shah et al.
Science Communication 2003;24:458-478.
ABSTRACT
|
