Purpose: The media are an important source of information about progress in medical research for the public. As a litmus test for current media reporting practices, this study investigates how newspapers covered a recent phase II drug trial on alemtuzumab in early multiple sclerosis (MS). Alemtuzumab is an extreme case of a high-benefit and high-risk drug at the same time, which would make balanced reporting particularly important.
Method: We investigated the 50 newspapers with the highest circulation in each of four countries (Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, and United States of America). Articles in temporal proximity to the original study were retrieved by LexisNexis database, newspaper specific archives online and direct contact to newspaper editors. Two raters coded which information was provided and if and how benefits and harms were presented.
Result: The analysis included 34 articles. About half of the articles provided information on MS and study methods. Only 9%, however, reported that treatment with alemtuzumab was suspended early, due to severe side effects including death of one patient. Information was provided more on benefits than harms. If numbers were provided, benefits were almost exclusively given in relative terms, but harms exclusively in absolute terms.
Conclusion: There was a severe and biased reduction of uncertainty in media reporting about alemtuzumab. Although there was generally a substantial amount of details provided, the articles often omitted harms while emphasizing benefits. We conclude that the media do not reliably provide balanced information about progress in medical research.
Candidate for the Lee B. Lusted Student Prize Competition