Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Drs Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz of Dartmouth Medical School, in New Hampshire, say that some medical press releases may exaggerate the perceived importance of findings and do not routinely highlight study limitations.

In addition, reporters give unwarranted coverage of incomplete research presentations at scientific meetings, they say. The effect is to give the public “undue hope or anxiety”, and in some cases may cause people to “seek unproved, useless or even dangerous tests and treatments”.

Drs Woloshin and Schwartz examined the medical press release process at several high-profile medical journals, including the British Medical Journal, JAMA and Circulation. Press releases are perhaps the most direct way that journals communicate with the media, they say.

A study of 127 press releases found that only 23 per cent noted study limitations, while 58 per cent noted differences between study groups. Industry funding was noted in only 22 per cent of the studies receiving such funding.

“The public and many physicians often learn about new medical research through the news media rather than medical journals. We think that journals can and should do more to enhance the quality of medical reporting,” the team write and say that press coverage of scientific meetings may be described as “too much, too soon”.

“Scientific meetings are intended to provide a forum for researchers to present new work to colleagues; the work presented may be preliminary and may have undergone only limited peer review,” say the doctors.

But results are frequently presented to the public as scientifically sound evidence rather than preliminary findings of still uncertain validity. This coverage is concerning since a substantial number of the studies remain unpublished, avoiding scrutiny by the scientific community.

“Press coverage at this early stage may leave the public with the false impression that the data are in fact mature, the methods valid, and the findings widely accepted,” say the researchers.

The team say that reporters should emphasize the preliminary nature of information presented, while scientists presenting work should emphasize the limitations of their work when being interviewed by the media.

© Health Media Ltd 2002
http://www.health-news.co.uk