Journalists shouldn't live by weekly journals

| 1 Comment

A review in JAMA shows that journal article findings that a treatment worked were contradicted 16 percent of the time by later studies. And another 16 percent of the time, studies found weaker results than earlier suggested. So nearly a third of original published results did not hold up to further scrutiny.

Dartmouth and VA researchers Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz have warned about news coverage that is "Too Much Too Soon" in coverage of presentations at scientific meetings.

For those journalists who live off weekly journals for their stories, and who fail to follow up on subsequent findings, the same "too much too soon" message is valid.


1 Comment

I was, frankly, surprised that 64% of studies had findings that were upheld!

Leave a comment

My policy on comments

I'm adopting the policy of a blog I admire: “Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal." I also won’t post profanity, product pitches, or anything from anyone who doesn’t list what appears to be an actual e-mail address.


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Gary Schwitzer published on July 13, 2005 9:02 AM.

Reading recommendations was the previous entry in this blog.

Disclosure of drug company funding in news is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Archives

Pages

Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Health

Add to Technorati Favorites