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.”