Media loves observational studies. https://t.co/42zW70QM1B
@peterdalle Det där är ett fenomen som man också har sett när det gäller forskning på nutrition/hälsa Sämre observationsstudie får oftare mer uppmärksamhet än bättre utförda RCT. https://t.co/Scd8l1q8hO
They are usually "observational" study designs with more confounding factors involved. The lamestream media loves 'em. https://t.co/qOxkmlgBvr
Oh speaking of it:
@sami_sundell @LeenaPutkonen @MikaelFogelholm Näin se menee mediassa ainakin Yhdysvalloissa. #PLOSONE: Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/F5SaZ7DCy0
RT @VPrasadMDMPH: A couple years ago, we asked among all articles that appeared in a period of time in top journals, did newspapers prefere…
@Dorialexander J’entends l’argument du temps long pour juger d’une dégradation ou non. Je n’ai pas d’expertise mais j’ai trouvé cette étude sur le biais éventuel des médias dans la couverture de la recherche médicale. https://t.co/b4ZhsJW2FU
@joshcnicholas I don't know about the actual results but the quality of the studies they write about is lower https://t.co/flAJxIWeR0 That of course makes the probability that the results are true lower
Newspapers were more likely to cover observational studies and less likely to cover RCTs than high impact journals. When the media does cover observational studies, they select articles of inferior quality. Newspapers preferentially cover medical research
RT @Micbrend: Worth considering - Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/RBRbXw3PP3
Worth considering - Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/RBRbXw3PP3
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
RT @pash22: Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2…
Media Coverage of Med Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/tq5jRuykNp via @VinayPrasad82 Newspapers ⬆️ 2 cover obsrvtnal studies of inferior Qlty & ⬇️ 2 cover RCTs than high impact journals. Newspapers preferntially cover med rsr
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
Advertencia al lector: si una nota periodística cita una investigación es probable que la calidad no sea la mejor. https://t.co/HYG46J3PNE
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
RT @CaulfieldTim: @FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were…
@FionaMattatall There is evidence that study quality ≠ news coverage. This analysis, for example, found "newspapers were more likely to cover observational studies and less likely to cover RCTs than high impact journals." https://t.co/NRgKC7TX1r @HealthNew
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @jondald: This is an important point and something that drives me bonkers in the lay press. Journalists, rise above the easy headline.…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
@Dr__Guess @laurznutandveg @TuckerGoodrich And in a completely separate thread this pops up. https://t.co/4rlsv4MdfX
@paleotaissa @lapfreitas É triste, mas é verdade. Temos q mudar isso. Vcs viram esse? https://t.co/CR8Az5zhxo Mostra o poder da midia... e os big journals têm recursos para enfrentar
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @DrSamadani: Phenomenally important article! Papers with stronger evidence should get more press than those with ascertainment biases,…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
Phenomenally important article! Papers with stronger evidence should get more press than those with ascertainment biases, no controls, and other method deficits. Many people (healthcare providers, policy makers) unconsciously get their science education
La tendance des journaux grand public à rapporter les résultats d’études observationnelles de plus faible effectifs issues de journaux à moindre impact factor https://t.co/0VD0hqtANr
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
Newspapers more likely to cover articles of inferior quality. https://t.co/qbXTw5CFbT
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @jondald: This is an important point and something that drives me bonkers in the lay press. Journalists, rise above the easy headline.…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
RT @bigfatsurprise: Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to…
Shows how newspapers over-rely on weak epidemiological studies (which show only association, not causation) compared to scientific journals rely far more on controlled trials (which show cause and effect). Maybe because: Epi findings come out daily, easy c
This is an important point and something that drives me bonkers in the lay press. Journalists, rise above the easy headline. Educate your readers. https://t.co/x2DBIXge71
@SBurtey @lexterneduchu @SNJMG Et je vous renvoie aussi vers cette autre étude montrant que les journalistes se focalisent trop sur les petites études aux résultats spectaculaires et ne prennent pas assez en cpte la qualité des études https://t.co/XmWWYoWM
Opportunity to remind that ‘lower level’ doesn’t itself mean bad science - it means the risk of bias is greater (compared to higher levels) —> and our confidence in the result(s) is tempered. More on this here: https://t.co/4S7qIF31zk https://t.co/eO0
RT @MartinFierro769: Les journaux rendent peu compte de la recherche clinique de qualité et favorisent la diffusion d' une recherche peu qu…
Important for science/medicine #journalists #media https://t.co/PWiKpu3RFU
Les journaux rendent peu compte de la recherche clinique de qualité et favorisent la diffusion d' une recherche peu qualitative. Autrement dit ils favorisent le hype plus que la pertinence scientifique. https://t.co/PooViXa8Pa
@alskadedumburk @AmirSariaslan @johanwicklen @ManneGerell Också relaterat https://t.co/4CIkGKoAuQ
Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News? https://t.co/MH30vB8vvz
@cstampeen For sure. And low quality studies often get more attention: https://t.co/NRgKC7Cm9T
RT @CaulfieldTim: .@JATetro I hear ya. Common problem (why I led with "Association Study"). Low quality studies often get spotlight: https:…
.@JATetro I hear ya. Common problem (why I led with "Association Study"). Low quality studies often get spotlight: https://t.co/NRgKC7TX1r