Sandbox: Difference between revisions
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Chance not in the News== | ==Chance not in the News== | ||
Medicine and the Media | Medicine and the Media<br> | ||
Whose watching the watchdogs | Whose watching the watchdogs<br> | ||
Lisa M Schwartz, Stephen Woloshin, Roy Moniham | Lisa M Schwartz, Stephen Woloshin, Roy Moniham<br> | ||
British Medical Journal, 19 November, 2008 | British Medical Journal, 19 November, 2008<br> | ||
There has been a great deal of concern of bias when a researcher is testing the | There has been a great deal of concern of bias when a researcher is testing the effectiveness of a new drug and has financial support from the company that produces the drug. In this paper the authors say that we should have the same concerns when news writers report the effectiveness of a new drug produced by a company from which they have had financial rewards. | ||
The authors describe the ways that news writers are rewarded by drug companies shown by the following table: | |||
<center> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/forwiki/422.jpg </center> | |||
Then they give suggestions how this could be avoided shown in the following table: | |||
Revision as of 15:54, 7 December 2008
Chance not in the News
Medicine and the Media
Whose watching the watchdogs
Lisa M Schwartz, Stephen Woloshin, Roy Moniham
British Medical Journal, 19 November, 2008
There has been a great deal of concern of bias when a researcher is testing the effectiveness of a new drug and has financial support from the company that produces the drug. In this paper the authors say that we should have the same concerns when news writers report the effectiveness of a new drug produced by a company from which they have had financial rewards.
The authors describe the ways that news writers are rewarded by drug companies shown by the following table:
Then they give suggestions how this could be avoided shown in the following table:
Then they give suggestions how this could be avoided
