A new study in the BMJ shows that universities often tend to write press releases that exaggerate the results of the studies they promote.
The journalist’s mission of information is not trivial when it comes to health. Promoting encouraging or on the contrary particularly negative results can have a big impact on the lives of readers. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for press articles to amplify the results of scientific studies … But wait, do not (just yet) cast shame on journalists! A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) shows that the errors and other exaggerations come mostly from press releases produced or approved by the researchers behind the study.
Conducted by researchers at Cardiff University (Wales), the study shows that 40% of university press releases contain excessive advice, 33% exaggerated causal links and 36% tend to extrapolate abusively to man the results of work carried out on animals. In contrast, when the releases are faithful to the work, the researchers show that only 17% of the press articles contain excessive advice, 18% erroneous cause and effect links and 10% extrapolations from animal to animal. man. The fault is therefore clearly on the side of the researchers themselves!
Scientists, primarily responsible
This does not mean, however, that the credibility of journalists is not damaged. Indeed, when the press releases exaggerate the results of the studies, there is a very strong risk that the press articles contain these same exaggerations … Journalists therefore do not sufficiently verify their sources.
However, the problem is not actually just with the press release or the news article. Doctor Amélie Yavchitz had wrote an article published in 2012 in PLOS Medicine, in which she showed that the cause of these exaggerations was to be found on the side of the scientists who carry out the studies.
Listen to Amélie Yavchitz, anesthesiologist and researcher at Inserm: ” A lot of the things that were exaggerated in the press release or in the press article came, in a large part, from the scientific article. “
For her, this exaggeration has two sources: first of all “a lack of knowledge of researchers to interpret a result”, explains Dr. Yavchitz, which can lead to methodological biases and therefore errors in their conclusions. She considers that there is also to take into account “the enthusiasm of the authors” for studies which took “a lot of time, a lot of money, in which they themselves believe”. Researchers who can therefore give in to the temptation to amplify their results because “a positive result will be more publicized, it will have more impact on the life of research and the career of the author”.
Listen to Amélie Yavchitz: ” When you read an article, you have to be very critical, look at the raw results, the method, have a rigorous eye. [Dans la presse] not everything is true, so results often have to be taken with a grain of salt. “
Conclusion: the doctor advises doctors and journalists (but also readers passionate about scientific studies) not to limit themselves to reading the summary, or even the conclusion, but to read the studies in their entirety.
.
