|
A study of how the mainstream mass media covers
health found that many news stories on drugs fail to report side effects
or researchers' financial ties to the companies that make the medications.
The researchers looked at 207 newspaper and TV stories from 1994 to 1998
on three drugs: aspirin; Zocor, a cholesterol-lowering drug; and Fosamax,
an osteoporosis drug.
In the 170 stories that cited experts or scientific
studies, half included at least one expert or study with financial ties
to the drug's manufacturer. Of those, only 40 percent reported the potential
conflict of interest. The study also found that fewer than half the news
stories reported the drugs' side effects and only 30 percent noted their
cost.
This report was published in the New England Journal
of Medicine, whose incoming editor has been charged by the FDA for an
apparent conflict of interest involving a drug company. He has admitted
that he may have made a mistake last year when he praised a new asthma
drug made by a company that had hired him to evaluate studies about the
medication.
Additionally, forty percent of the stories studied
did not report the numbers behind the claims of medical benefits. Also,
83 percent of the studies reported only the relative benefit, 2 percent
reported only the absolute benefit, and only 15 percent reported both.
For example, many 1996 stories about a Fosamax study
said the drug would cut an osteoporosis patient's risk of a broken hip
in half - the relative benefit. But most failed to include the absolute
reduction in risk, from a 2 percent chance of a hip fracture to 1 percent.
Reporting only the relative benefit is an approach
that has been shown to increase the enthusiasm of doctors and patients
for long-term preventive treatments and that could be viewed as potentially
misleading. In addition, while most of the top medical journals require
researchers to report their financial ties to drug companies, some studies
do not include the information because a researcher fails to disclose
it.
New England Journal
of Medicine 2000; 342: 1668-1671.
| 