What should medical journals be doing to more accurately communicate study results?
Medical journals need to be more scientifically robust and stop worrying about getting quoted on NPR and in The New York Times, which unfortunately is what they do. It doesn’t mean they should stop publishing the science they publish, but it does mean they need to be more precise and honest about a study’s implications. The popular media focus on a study’s “discussion” and “conclusions,” about which the journals must become more rigorous. But the journals are rigorous in the peer-review evaluations. They’re rigorous in the evaluations, but they’re not rigorous in the interpretation. And the reason they’re not rigorous, I think, is purposeful because it’ll get bigger headlines and they want to be quoted every week in The New York Times. And if you really are rigorous, the number of headlines you can generate is pretty small. You challenge the value of observational studies. I challenge their use and interpretation, not their potential value. For instance, observational studies can provi
Related Questions
- If something goes wrong while doing the internship or study immersion, will I be able to communicate with MA in International Studies directors and seek help/guidance?
- What is APA doing to communicate the results and impact of the 2008 referendum?
- How will the New York Fed communicate the auction results?
