Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study
by
Kolber, Michael R
, McCormack, James
, Korownyk, Christina
, Finley, Caitlin
, Campbell-Scherer, Denise
, Overbo, Kate
, Turgeon, Ricky D
, Garrison, Scott
, Vandermeer, Ben
, Cotton, Candra
, Lam, Vanessa
, Lindblad, Adrienne J
, Banh, Hoan Linh
, Allan, G Michael
in
CHRISTMAS 2014: MEDIA STUDIES
/ Clinical Competence - standards
/ Clinical trials
/ Conflicts of interest
/ Credibility
/ Data collection
/ Evidence-Based Medicine - standards
/ Famous Persons
/ Humans
/ Mass media
/ News media
/ Physicians - standards
/ Practice Guidelines as Topic
/ Prospective Studies
/ Quality of Health Care - standards
/ Talk shows
/ Television
2014
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study
by
Kolber, Michael R
, McCormack, James
, Korownyk, Christina
, Finley, Caitlin
, Campbell-Scherer, Denise
, Overbo, Kate
, Turgeon, Ricky D
, Garrison, Scott
, Vandermeer, Ben
, Cotton, Candra
, Lam, Vanessa
, Lindblad, Adrienne J
, Banh, Hoan Linh
, Allan, G Michael
in
CHRISTMAS 2014: MEDIA STUDIES
/ Clinical Competence - standards
/ Clinical trials
/ Conflicts of interest
/ Credibility
/ Data collection
/ Evidence-Based Medicine - standards
/ Famous Persons
/ Humans
/ Mass media
/ News media
/ Physicians - standards
/ Practice Guidelines as Topic
/ Prospective Studies
/ Quality of Health Care - standards
/ Talk shows
/ Television
2014
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study
by
Kolber, Michael R
, McCormack, James
, Korownyk, Christina
, Finley, Caitlin
, Campbell-Scherer, Denise
, Overbo, Kate
, Turgeon, Ricky D
, Garrison, Scott
, Vandermeer, Ben
, Cotton, Candra
, Lam, Vanessa
, Lindblad, Adrienne J
, Banh, Hoan Linh
, Allan, G Michael
in
CHRISTMAS 2014: MEDIA STUDIES
/ Clinical Competence - standards
/ Clinical trials
/ Conflicts of interest
/ Credibility
/ Data collection
/ Evidence-Based Medicine - standards
/ Famous Persons
/ Humans
/ Mass media
/ News media
/ Physicians - standards
/ Practice Guidelines as Topic
/ Prospective Studies
/ Quality of Health Care - standards
/ Talk shows
/ Television
2014
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study
Journal Article
Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study
2014
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Objective To determine the quality of health recommendations and claims made on popular medical talk shows.Design Prospective observational study.Setting Mainstream television media.Sources Internationally syndicated medical television talk shows that air daily (The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors).Interventions Investigators randomly selected 40 episodes of each of The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors from early 2013 and identified and evaluated all recommendations made on each program. A group of experienced evidence reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team, evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from each show.Main outcomes measures Percentage of recommendations that are supported by evidence as determined by a team of experienced evidence reviewers. Secondary outcomes included topics discussed, the number of recommendations made on the shows, and the types and details of recommendations that were made.Results We could find at least a case study or better evidence to support 54% (95% confidence interval 47% to 62%) of the 160 recommendations (80 from each show). For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. For recommendations in The Doctors, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 53% on The Doctors. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode and The Doctors 11. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%) and on The Doctors was to consult a healthcare provider (18%). A specific benefit was described for 43% and 41% of the recommendations made on the shows respectively. The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 11% on The Doctors. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest accompanied 0.4% of recommendations.Conclusions Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.Additional details of methods used and changes made to study protocol
Publisher
British Medical Journal Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.