|
Journalism Professor Rates Health Studies
By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.
Here at ACSH we’ve complained for years that health-related stories in the popular media often pay scant attention to the scientific accuracy and importance of the studies they report on. For example, we’ve seen preliminary studies reported at scientific meetings given equal weight with studies that have undergone peer review and are published in respected scientific journals. As we’ve noted in several publications, problems range from misleading and alarmist headlines to a basic misunderstanding of the difference between association and causation in the results of epidemiologic studies.
Now we’ve come across some valuable help -- an Internet site published by journalism professor Gary J. Schwitzer at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Professor Schwitzer has an extensive background in journalism and puts it to good use on his Health News Review site. The good professor analyzes and critiques health-related news stories, explaining why a particular article presents its topic accurately and clearly -- or why it doesn’t. He rates stories with up to five stars, and details what the standards are for the ratings. We’re pleased to find such a useful resource and hope our readers find it valuable as well.
Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com). See also: ACSH's report on Good Stories, Bad Science. 
Lance_K (April 1, 2009)
I applaud Professor Schwitzer's initiative, and the valuable service he is providing.
However, Professor Schwitzer's ratings represent just one opinion (his own). Has anyone ever done a scientific study of scientific studies? In other words, has anyone researched what percentage of studies (in general media, in reputable journals, etc) meet some reasonable standard, and passes that judgment from a research methodology that meets those standards? It seems that Professor Schwitzer is headed in that direction, but is his own methodology for rating studies as vigorous and as vetted as the studies he is rating? It is easy to imagine that those who publish studies that Schwitzer rates poorly in turn will seek either to find fault with Schwitzer’s rating system, or to dismiss it as inconsequential.
Gary Schwitzer (April 1, 2009)
I want to address a significant error in Lance K's message.
The ratings on HealthNewsReview.org DO NOT represent just one opinion (mine). I work with a team of more than two dozen reviewers with backgrounds in journalism, medicine, public health and health services research from academic medical centers across the US. Three independent reviewers analyze each story.
And we employ the same 10 standardized criteria to the review of all stories - now numbering more than 740 reviews in three years.
This is as rigorous a review process as anyone has ever applied to the review of so many health news stories.
Our first two years' experience was summarized in a paper in PLoS Medicine last May -
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095.
Lance_K (April 1, 2009)
Very impressive! Please accept my apology.
|
