Editor’s comment

Spin doctors

This example may be relatively trivial – except of course that we don’t know if this will actually deliver what the news channels are promising, what the side-effects are, or even if, in fact, the compound will consistently do what the initial research has shown it to be capable of doing. In the journal PLOS Medicine, however, there is an article looking at misrepresentation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in press releases and news coverage.2 As Amélie Yavchitz and her colleagues point out, the mass media play an important role in disseminating the results of medical research about new drugs, and the latest clinical studies. Journalists source material from press releases – few science and health journalists are actually scientifically trained and so they rely on the veracity of the information in these press releases to inform their public. Yavchitz et al. say that in an ideal world, journal articles, press releases and news stories would accurately reflect the results of health research. However, their research shows that the findings of RCTs are sometimes distorted, not only in the press releases, but also in the peer-reviewed journals themselves, by ‘spin’ – reporting that emphasises the beneficial effects of the experimental new treatment. The study cites cases where journal articles may interpret non-statistically significant differences as showing the equivalence of two treatments, even though the results actually show a lack of evidence for the superiority of either treatment. This can lead to unrealistic patient (and doctor) expectations about new treatments when translated into clinical practice. The research was done on 70 press releases indexed in EurekaAlert! over a 4-month period. Nearly half the press releases and article abstract conclusions contained ‘spin’. Importantly, ‘spin’ in the press releases was associated with ‘spin’ in the article abstracts. Factors that were associated with this overestimation of treatment benefits included publication in a specialised journal and having ‘spin’ in the press release.

In the example that I started with, the original article does not contain any such ‘spin’, but then this is a small non-clinical study. It has been seized on by the lay press because people don’t want grey hair. However, in other cases this misinterpretation can be serious – unrealistic expectations about treatment for metastatic solid tumours is a good example. These are published, peer-reviewed studies. Removing ‘spin’ should happen at source and is the responsibility of those of us who are involved in both the review and the editing process.

1. Schallreuter KU, Salem MAEL, Holtz S, Panske A. 2013. Basic evidence for epidermal H2O2/ONOO−-mediated oxidation/nitration in segmental vitiligo is supported by repigmentation of skin and eyelashes after reduction of epidermal H2O2 with topical NB-UVB-activated pseudocatalase PC-KUS. FASEB J fj.12-226779; published ahead of print April 29, 2013. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.12-226779.

1. Schallreuter KU, Salem MAEL, Holtz S, Panske A. 2013. Basic evidence for epidermal H2O2/ONOO−-mediated oxidation/nitration in segmental vitiligo is supported by repigmentation of skin and eyelashes after reduction of epidermal H2O2 with topical NB-UVB-activated pseudocatalase PC-KUS. FASEB J fj.12-226779; published ahead of print April 29, 2013. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.12-226779.

2. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, et al. 2012. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: A cohort study. PLoS Med 9(9):e1001308. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308.

2. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, et al. 2012. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: A cohort study. PLoS Med 9(9):e1001308. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308.