An editorial in the December 2 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Woloshin S. et al., Vol. 101: 1-3, 2009)caught our eye. In it, the authors described the challenge of “helping journalists get it right.” This refers to the correct reporting of new scientific data that is published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at medical or scientific conferences. The authors highlighted the fact that both fears and hopes of biomedical research are often exaggerated and that results and caveats are often incomplete. Although they do finger reporters as contributors to the problem scientific and medical journals and press releases disclosing new data also take part of the blame.
The Authors propose a number of corrective measures. First, both relative and absolute risks of an intervention should be included. Reporting only on a relative risk, say a 20% reduction, may or may not be meaningful (1% to 0.8% vs. 40% to 32%). Reporters should learn and investigators should provide more about the study, its design, and caveats so that reporters are able to communicate the conclusions as well as the limitations of the study. Reporting should then provide a better context of the study so that readers and better understand its relevance.
At Russo Partners, we specialize in communicating biomedical results for our biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical device and non-profit research institution clients. We strive to communicate new research findings to our clients’ target audiences. An important component is the complete communication of results in the proper context. Accurate reporting of study results benefits our client companies and better educates their target audiences.
