Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesEvaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.DesignCross-sectional review.Data sourcesMedline database.Eligibility criteriaArticles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries.Data extractionKey data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs).ResultsWe included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe.ConclusionsWomen were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women’s authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186702.

Historical Injustices in Medicine and the JournalA new series examines biases and injustices that the Journal has helped to perpetuate over its history, in the hope that reckoning with our past will help us prevent harm in the future.

Medical experts are one of the main sources used by journalists in reporting on medical science. This study aims to 1) identify problems that medical experts encounter in contacts with the media representatives, 2) elucidate their attitudes about interactions with journalists and 3) reflect on solutions that could improve the quality of medical journalism. By using in-depth interviews, focus groups and a survey directed to 600 medical experts in 21 countries, this cohort study elucidates medical experts' experiences and views on participating in popular media. A strong interest in interacting with the media was identified among the experts, where nearly one fifth of the respondents in the survey claimed that they contacted the media more than 10 times per year. Six obstacles for improving the quality of medical reporting in the media were found: deadlines, headlines, choice of topic or angle, journalist's level of medical knowledge, differences in professional culture and colleagues' opinions. The main concern among experts was that short deadlines and exaggerated headlines could harm journalistic quality. It is possible that this is partly due to ongoing changes in the media landscape with many new platforms and less control functions. Nevertheless, for several reasons many experts have great interest in interacting with the media, something that could contribute to better communication and fewer misunderstandings. Our results highlight factors like expert networks, media training for scientists and regular meetings that may facilitate communication between medical experts and medical reporters.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) play an important role in evidence-based medicine. However, an article with low reporting quality may mislead both experts and the general public into an erroneous decision. Data sharing can contribute to the truthfulness and transparency of trials. Acupuncture RCTs have been increasing rapidly these years, but the reporting quality and data-sharing level of acupuncture RCTs are not clear. Thus, this study will provide the current status of the reporting quality and data-sharing level of acupuncture RCTs.Methods and analysisA cross-sectional study will be conducted. The seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database and VIP will be searched between 1 January 2012 and 15 October 2022 to identify acupuncture RCTs. The basic characteristics of included trials will be summarised. The reporting quality for included RCTs will be assessed by the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials 2010 statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture. The data-sharing level will be assessed by open science practices.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework Registries. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.

ObjectiveWe assessed the extent of lag times in the publication and indexing of network meta-analyses (NMAs).Study designThis was a survey of published NMAs on drug interventions.SettingNMAs indexed in PubMed (searches updated in May 2020).Primary and secondary outcome measuresLag times were measured as the time between the last systematic search and the article submission, acceptance, online publication, indexing and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocation dates. Time-to-event analyses were performed considering independent variables (geographical origin, Journal Impact Factor, Scopus CiteScore, open access status) (SPSS V.24, R/RStudio).ResultsWe included 1245 NMAs. The median time from last search to article submission was 6.8 months (204 days (IQR 95–381)), and to publication was 11.6 months. Only 5% of authors updated their search after first submission. There is a very slightly decreasing historical trend of acceptance (rho=−0.087; p=0.010), online publication (rho=−0.080; p=0.008) and indexing (rho=−0.080; p=0.007) lag times. Journal Impact Factor influenced the MeSH allocation process, but not the other lag times. The comparison between open access versus subscription journals confirmed meaningless differences in acceptance, online publication and indexing lag times.ConclusionEfforts by authors to update their search before submission are needed to reduce evidence production time. Peer reviewers and editors should ensure authors’ compliance with NMA standards. The accuracy of these findings depends on the accuracy of the metadata used; as we evaluated only NMA on drug interventions, results may not be generalisable to all types of studies.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of information regarding the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 available to the general public from all countries.DesignSystematic analysis using the ‘Ensuring Quality Information for Patients’ (EQIP) Tool (score 0–36), Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark (score 0–4) and the DISCERN Tool (score 16–80) to analyse websites containing information targeted at the general public.Data sourcesTwelve popular search terms, including ‘Coronavirus’, ‘COVID-19 19’, ‘Wuhan virus’, ‘How to treat coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19 19 Prevention’ were identified by ‘Google AdWords’ and ‘Google Trends’. Unique links from the first 10 pages for each search term were identified and evaluated on its quality of information.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll websites written in the English language, and provides information on prevention or treatment of COVID-19 intended for the general public were considered eligible. Any websites intended for professionals, or specific isolated populations, such as students from one particular school, were excluded, as well as websites with only video content, marketing content, daily caseload update or news dashboard pages with no health information.ResultsOf the 1275 identified websites, 321 (25%) were eligible for analysis. The overall EQIP, JAMA and DISCERN scores were 17.8, 2.7 and 38.0, respectively. Websites originated from 34 countries, with the majority from the USA (55%). News Services (50%) and Government/Health Departments (27%) were the most common sources of information and their information quality varied significantly. Majority of websites discuss prevention alone despite popular search trends of COVID-19 treatment. Websites discussing both prevention and treatment (n=73, 23%) score significantly higher across all tools (p<0.001).ConclusionThis comprehensive assessment of online COVID-19 information using EQIP, JAMA and DISCERN Tools indicate that most websites were inadequate. This necessitates improvements in online resources to facilitate public health measures during the pandemic.

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. This study aimed to investigate whether specific aspects of Web-based diabetes research news are associated with positive or negative sentiments in readers. 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. 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. 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.

ObjectivesTo describe COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and track trends over time in traditional news media.DesignRetrospective cohort study of a large database of online articles, July 2020–June 2021.SettingEnglish-language articles from 100 news outlets with the greatest reach.Main outcome measuresNumbers and percentages of articles containing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation over the study period. Further analysis by misinformation themes and whether articles included primary misinformation, fact-checking or simply referred to misinformation.Results41 718 (3.2% of all COVID-19 vaccine articles) contained at least one of the vaccine misinformation themes based on the Boolean string developed for this study. The volume of such articles increased beginning in November 2020, but their percentage of all articles remained essentially stable after October 2020. 56.2% contained at least one mention of a safety theme, followed by development, production, and distribution (26.6%), and conspiracies (15.1%). Of 500 articles through January 2021 randomly selected from those identified by the Boolean string, 223 were not relevant, and 277 included either fact-checking (175 articles), refers to misinformation (87 articles) or primary misinformation (15 articles). In eight study weeks, the reach of these 277 articles (defined as visitors to the sites containing the articles) exceeded 250 million people. Fact-checking accounted for 69.6% of all reach for these articles and the number of such articles increased after November 2020. Overall, approximately 0.1% (95% CI 0.05% to 0.16%) of all articles on COVID-19 vaccines in our sample contained primary misinformation.ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccine misinformation in traditional news media is uncommon but has the capacity to reach large numbers of readers and affect the vaccine conversation. Recent increases in fact-checking may counteract some of the misinformation currently circulating.

ObjectivesSince the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been much concern and speculation about rises in suicide rates, despite evidence that suicides did not in fact increase in the first year of the pandemic in most countries with real-time suicide data. This public narrative is potentially harmful, as well as misleading, and is likely to be perpetuated by sensational news coverage.MethodUsing a bespoke database, we analysed the quality and content of print and online UK news (including opinion pieces) on the impact of COVID-19 on suicidality, based on adherence to international recommendations. χ2 tests were conducted to examine variability in relation to key characteristics (eg, type of publication) and to four ‘restriction phases’ (based on UK government official lockdown measures) over the first 14 months of the pandemic.ResultsWe identified 372 stories about COVID-19 and suicidality in online and print news between the first UK lockdown (March 2020) and May 2021 (when restrictions were significantly eased in the UK). Throughout this period, over a third of articles (39.2%) and headlines (41.4%) claimed or predicted a rise in suicide, often attributed to feelings of entrapment and poor mental health (especially among young people) and fueled by expert commentary and speculation. Almost a third of reports were rated as being of negative quality (116, 31.2%), and at least half included no signposting to help and support. However, reporting improved in phases of less stringent COVID-19 restrictions and over time, with later articles and headlines including fewer negative statements and predictions about rises in suicides, and greater reliance on academic evidence.ConclusionsAs the longer-term consequences of the pandemic develop, and other national and global events unfold, it is increasingly important that the media, and the wider community of experts shaping its narratives, strive for a positive and evidence-informed approach to news coverage of suicide.

ObjectivesGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has implications for the future health of both mother and offspring, and there is a risk that mothers are held responsible and blamed for their own and their offspring’s long-term health. The media plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions of health. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate how GDM and women with GDM are portrayed in Danish written media.DesignWe identified written newspaper articles reporting on GDM from 2018 to 2019 and analysed them using thematic network analysis and elements from critical discourse analysis.ResultsIn total, 130 articles were included in the analysis. Four themes emerged: (1) ways of introducing GDM, (2) descriptions of causes and prevention of GDM, (3) descriptions of consequences of GDM and (4) value-laden descriptions of GDM. GDM was often mentioned in relation to other conditions or factors and with lack of differentiation. Maternal responsibility was emphasised via oversimplified descriptions of causal relations, descriptions of individual agency and no emphasis on structural causes and preventive measures. GDM was positioned as resulting in ‘bad pregnancies’ using value-laden wordings.ConclusionWe identified various aspects of how GDM is portrayed in written media. The findings signal the importance of clear, nuanced and respectful communication on GDM, including conveying the complexity of the condition and the role of structural factors.