• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Dietitians for Professional Integrity

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Resources
    • Advocacy & Action Toolkit
    • Conflict-Free CEUs
    • Distinguished Dietitians
    • Ethical Sponsorship
    • FNCE Guides & Reports
    • Like-Minded Organizations
    • RD Resource Toolkit
    • Statements of Concern
    • Understand The Issues
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Search

Dec 21, 2016 Leave a Comment

A Call for More Independent Commentators

A new study published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal which found that “only one in six media news stories on journal-based medical research included comments from outside observers, and a quarter of those commenting did not have the clinical or academic expertise to comment on the studies in question.”

Highlights, via Medscape:

  • “The study found that competing interests influenced opinions on research findings, with more positive views expressed when academic or financial interests were congruent with research results.”
  • “While it’s tempting to say we’ve proved this problem exists a thousand times over, we still need to have this conversation,” British Medical Journal associated editor Jeanne Lenzer told Medscape Medical News. “Journalists don’t abide by these criteria. I am seeing tons of commercials disguised as news.” That statement applies even to respected outlets such as the Wall Street Journal.”
  • “The researchers searched a large global media database and identified 104 independent comments from 102 sources on original clinical research published in influential general and internal medicine journals during the period from January 1 to March 31, 2013. They also scrutinized 21 journal editorials on the studies. The findings appeared in such high-impact publications as the New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, PloS Medicine, the BMJ, and the Lancet.”
  • “In contrast with recommended standards for healthcare and medical journalism, Wang and associates found that 54% of outside commentators had an academic conflict of interest, and 32% had a financial conflict of interest; only 45% of academic and 33% of financial competing interests were explicitly disclosed.”
  • “Of the 33 financial conflicts of interest among independent sources, 25 were rated as high, one as moderate, and seven as low in strength. Among the eight financial conflicts found in editorialists, four were ranked as high, one as moderate, and three as low in strength.”
  • “In addition, the vetted news pieces contained 23 comments from spokespersons for advocacy organizations, and six of these had a commercial sponsor with a vested interest relevant to the source research. Again, none of these conflicts was disclosed.”
  • “Commenting on the study, Lenzer noted that although “it provides some useful information, I think the authors conflated academic-intellectual with professional conflicts.” For example, a urologist will favor prostate-specific antigen testing, and both gastroenterologists and radiologists want to test for stomach distress. “So it depends on who you ask. These are actually professional conflicts that should be recognized essentially as your bread and butter,” she said.
  • “In a related editorial commentary, Ray Moynihan, PhD, from the Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice at Bond University, Queensland, Australia, and a coauthor write, “The call to develop and evaluate strategies to include more genuinely independent and informed commenters in coverage of medical research is welcome, as part of wider efforts to make medical journalism healthier — in media new and old.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Categories: Recommended Reads Tags: conflicts of interest

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Browse by Topic

  • Academic Research
  • Advocacy
  • Distinguished Dietitians
  • Ethical Sponsorship
  • Industry Spin
  • Industry-Funded Research
  • Interviews
  • Photos
  • Problematic Sponsorship
  • Recommended Reads
  • Reports
  • Statements of Concern
  • Uncategorized

Tags

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics American Beverage Association Andy Bellatti Big Tobacco California Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Center for Science in the Public Interest CEUs Civil Eats Coca-Cola ConAgra conflicts of interest Corn Refiners Association FNCE front groups General Mills Global Energy Balance Network Hershey's industry-funded research junk food Kellogg Kids Eat Right Kraft Kraft Singles lobbying Marion Nestle marketing marketing to children Mars McDonald's meat industry Michele Simon moderation National Dairy Council Nestlé New York Times PepsiCo policy soda soda tax soda taxes sugar The Sugar Association Unilever World Health Organization Yoni Freedhoff

Footer

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Posts

Farewell to Our Supporters

Dear DFPI Supporters, Since February of 2013, we at Dietitians For Professional Integrity have been a voice for uplifting the registered dietitian credential at a time when corporate influences - both overt and covert Read More

Highly Processed Foods Can Negatively Impact Health

Good read from New York Times on how highly processed foods (and the ingredients in many of them) can negatively impact health by creating an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This is the future of nutrition. The fact Read More

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

RSS

  • RSS - Posts

© 2022 Dietitians for Professional Integrity