What cancer research makes the news? A quantitative analysis of online news stories that mention cancer studies.

Journalists' health and science reporting aid the public's direct access to research through the inclusion of hyperlinks leading to original studies in peer-reviewed journals. While this effort supports the US-government mandate that research be made widely available, little is known about what research journalists share with the public. This cross-sectional exploratory study characterises US-government-funded research on cancer that appeared most frequently in news coverage and how that coverage varied by cancer type, disease incidence and mortality rates. The subject of analysis was 11436 research articles (published in 2016) on cancer funded by the US government and 642 news stories mentioning at least one of these articles. Based on Altmetric data, researchers identified articles via PubMed and characterised each based on the news media attention received online. Only 1.88% (n = 213) of research articles mentioning US government-funded cancer research included at least one mention in an online news publication. This is in contrast to previous research that found 16.8% (n = 1925) of articles received mention by online mass media publications. Of the 13 most common cancers in the US, 12 were the subject of at least one news mention; only urinary and bladder cancer received no mention. Traditional news sources included significantly more mentions of research on common cancers than digital native news sources. However, a general discrepancy exists between cancers prominent in news sources and those with the highest mortality rate. For instance, lung cancer accounted for the most deaths annually, while melanoma led to 56% less annual deaths; however, journalists cited research regarding these cancers nearly equally. Additionally, breast cancer received the greatest coverage per estimated annual death, while pancreatic cancer received the least coverage per death. Findings demonstrated a continued misalignment between prevalent cancers and cancers mentioned in online news media. Additionally, cancer control and prevention received less coverage from journalists than other cancer continuum stages, highlighting a continued underrepresentation of prevention-focused research. Results revealed a need for further scholarship regarding the role of journalists in research dissemination.

Rhetorical Appeals and Tactics in New York Times Comments About Vaccines: Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Improving persuasion in response to vaccine skepticism is a long-standing problem. Elective nonvaccination emerging from skepticism about vaccine safety and efficacy jeopardizes herd immunity, exposing those who are most vulnerable to the risk of serious diseases. OBJECTIVE: This article analyzes vaccine sentiments in the New York Times as a way of improving understanding of why existing persuasive approaches may be ineffective and offers insight into how existing methods might be improved. We categorize pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine arguments, offering an in-depth analysis of pro-vaccine appeals and tactics in particular to enhance current understanding of arguments that support vaccines. METHODS: Qualitative thematic analyses were used to analyze themes in rhetorical appeals across 808 vaccine-specific comments. Pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine comments were categorized to provide a broad analysis of the overall context of vaccine comments across viewpoints, with in-depth rhetorical analysis of pro-vaccine comments to address current gaps in understanding of pro-vaccine arguments in particular. RESULTS: Appeals across 808 anti-vaccine and pro-vaccine comments were similar, though these appeals diverged in tactics and conclusions. Anti-vaccine arguments were more heterogeneous, deploying a wide range of arguments against vaccines. Additional analysis of pro-vaccine comments reveals that these comments use rhetorical strategies that could be counterproductive to producing persuasion. Pro-vaccine comments more frequently used tactics such as ad hominem arguments levied at those who refuse vaccines or used appeals to science to correct beliefs in vaccine skepticism, both of which can be ineffective when attempting to persuade a skeptical audience. CONCLUSIONS: Further study of pro-vaccine argumentation appeals and tactics could illuminate how persuasiveness could be improved in online forums.

The Altmetric era in eating disorder research: Assessing the association between Altmetric scores and citation scores for articles in the International Journal of Eating Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The dissemination and uptake of scientific findings is of critical importance. While broader research suggests that an article's Altmetric score may predict subsequent citation scores for scientific manuscripts, the potential relationship between online dissemination and the broader scientific uptake of findings has not been explored in eating disorder research. METHOD: We identified 310 manuscripts published between 2017 and 2018 in the International Journal of Eating Disorders, and assessed (a) Altmetric scores, (b) the composition of Altmetric scores (i.e., Facebook posts, Twitter posts), and (c) overall citation scores. RESULTS: Higher Altmetric scores were associated with higher citation scores. Multivariate analysis of separate Altmetric components indicated a higher number of Facebook mentions was uniquely associated with higher citation scores. DISCUSSION: Altmetric scores may offer a viable and relatively rapid metric of the likely uptake and impact of manuscripts. Ultimately, these findings represent preliminary evidence of the benefits of widespread dissemination of eating disorder research beyond traditional academic methods. Future research should focus on expanding our preliminary findings to include a larger examination of articles to show evidence for or against the relationship between higher Altmetric scores and higher citation scores.

Evaluation of websites reached using Google in the modern digital era related to approach to cholesterol.

OBJECTIVE: The Google search engine is widely used as a source of medical information; however, legal and medical governance of the accuracy of the content retrieved is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the most read Turkish-language texts related to cholesterol during a specific period according to the validity of the content. METHODS: Google Trends was queried on January 5, 2019 for the search term 'cholesterol' and the 9 other most popular search phrases used in Turkey that included the word cholesterol. In all, 100 links were obtained for each phrase, generating a total of 1000 links. Once duplicates were eliminated, a total of 604 links was used for the study. Since there is currently no validation scoring system for this purpose in the literature, the authors created a checklist according to well-accepted recent guidelines focused on cholesterol. The content of the texts acquired was classified as misleading, insufficient but favorable, or sufficient and favorable. RESULTS: The source of the online texts studied was universities (n=8, 1.3%), hospitals (n=6, 0.9%), personal blogs (n=200, 33.1%), health websites (n=183, 30.2%), and medical journals (n=207, 34.2%). In all, 235 texts (38.9%) were classified as sufficient and favorable and 35 (5.7%) were categorized as misleading. A medical practitioner was named in 378 texts (62.5%). All of the results from universities and hospitals were ranked in the favorable group. A statistical difference in the word count was seen in a comparison of the misleading and favorable texts. CONCLUSION: Google can connect users to a significant quantity of material related to cholesterol that includes a wide range from misleading information to sufficient and favorable texts. The variation in the quality of the content on websites accessible via Google necessitates that cholesterol resource material should be selected with great care.

Primed to comply: Individual participant data sharing statements on ClinicalTrials.gov.

In June 2017, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced a requirement that authors reporting the results of clinical trials to journals that follow ICMJE recommendations must include an individual participant data (IPD) sharing statement with manuscripts submitted after 01 July 2018. Additionally, all new clinical trials for which enrollment began on or after 01 January 2019 must include a data sharing statement in the trial's publicly posted registration. This study sought to understand whether IPD sharing statements of clinical trials first registered on ClinicalTrials.gov before 01 January 2019 reflected comprehension of the expectations and a willingness to share. To establish baseline characteristics for the prevalence and quality of IPD sharing statements, we examined IPD sharing statements among 2,040 clinical trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov between 01 January 2018 and 06 June 2018. Two independent coders further analyzed the quality of the IPD sharing statements of trials whose registration records indicated the intent to share IPD. The vast majority of trials included in this study did not indicate an intent to share IPD (n = 1,928; 94.5%). Among the trials that did commit to sharing IPD (n = 112, 5.5%), significant variability existed in the content and structure of IPD sharing statements. The results of this study suggest that successful compliance with the IPD sharing statement requirements of the ICMJE will require further clarification, enhanced education, and outreach to investigators.

Learning to Critically Appraise Rheumatic Disease Literature: Educational Opportunities During Training and into Practice.

To provide optimal patient care, rheumatologists must be equipped and motivated to critically appraise the literature. The conceptual frameworks Retrieval Enhanced Learning, Self-Determination Theory, and Communities of Practice can inform the design of educational approaches to promote critical appraisal in practice. HSS CLASS-Rheum® is a learning tool that can be used to help rheumatologists learn skills for critical appraisal through retrieval practice. Combining retrieval practice with opportunities for connection through Peer Instruction, journal clubs, and other forums can help support engagement and internalization of motivation, promoting persistence with critical appraisal in practice.

Associations Between Characteristics of Web-Based Diabetes News and Readers' Sentiments: Observational Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Although experts agree that Web-based health information often contains exaggeration and misrepresentation of science, it is not yet known how this information affects the readers' sentiments. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether specific aspects of Web-based diabetes research news are associated with positive or negative sentiments in readers. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of the comments on diabetes research news posted on Facebook pages was conducted as a function of the innovations' developmental phase, the intended treatment effect, and the use of strong language to intensify the news messages (superlatives). Data for the investigation were drawn from the diabetes research news posted between January 2014 and January 2018 on the two largest Dutch Facebook pages on diabetes and the corresponding reader comments. By manually coding these Facebook user comments, three binary outcome variables were created, reflecting the presence of a positive sentiment, the presence of a negative sentiment, and the presence of a statement expressing hopefulness. RESULTS: Facebook users made a total of 3710 comments on 173 diabetes research news posts that were eligible for further analysis. Facebook user comments on posts about diabetes prevention (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.84), improved blood glucose regulation (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.84), and symptom relief (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.44) were associated with less positive sentiments as compared with potential diabetes cures. Furthermore, comments on innovations supported by preclinical evidence in animals were associated with more positive sentiments (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.07-1.99) and statements expressing hope (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.01-2.14), when compared with innovations that have evidence from large human trials. This study found no evidence for the associations between language intensification of the news posts and the readers' sentiments. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that the attitudes toward diabetes research news on Facebook are most positive when clinical efficacy is not (or not yet) proven in large patient trials suggests that news authors and editors, as well as medical professionals, must exercise caution when acting as a conduit for diabetes research news.