Quality of content reporting on two major oncology media websites: OncLive and Targeted Oncology

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES

Journal of Cancer Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100411

Naman Sharma , Cole Wayant , Karun Neupane , Jyotirmayee Lenka , Katherine Berger , Aaron M. Goodman , Christopher M. Booth , Vinay Prasad , Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin

{"title":"Quality of content reporting on two major oncology media websites: OncLive and Targeted Oncology","authors":"Naman Sharma , Cole Wayant , Karun Neupane , Jyotirmayee Lenka , Katherine Berger , Aaron M. Goodman , Christopher M. Booth , Vinay Prasad , Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Oncology media websites such as Oncology Live (OncLive) and Targeted Oncology (TargetedOnc) play an important role in the dissemination of oncology news to patients and clinicians; however, the quality of the content on these websites has not been assessed. Our study aimed to analyze content from these websites and assess financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) amongst speakers interviewed on these websites.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Articles published on OncLive and TargetedOnc during October 2021, were prospectively captured and analyzed. The primary outcome of our study was the quality of oncology news reporting in OncLive and TargetedOnc. We assessed the FCOI amongst speakers using data from Open Payments.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We examined 196 articles (OncLive 108, TargetedOnc 88). Limitations of cited research were reported in 7% (7/105) of OncLive and zero TargetedOnc articles. Benefit and risks in absolute numbers were reported in 28% (28/99) of OncLive and 16% (7/45) of TargetedOnc articles. Independent experts were quoted in 47% (51/108) and 51% (44/86) of the OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively <em>(Table 3).</em> Pharmaceutical executives were quoted in 18% (20/108) and 11% (10/88) of OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively. No FCOI disclosures were listed or reported for any articles. The mean general payment received from industry by United States physicians was $63,861 in 2019 and $39,639 in 2020.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our study demonstrates low quality and potentially biased reporting of oncology news on OncLive and TargetedOnc. Careful safeguards, oversight and reporting of relevant FCOI are needed to maintain the quality and transparency of content being provided.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Oncology media websites such as Oncology Live (OncLive) and Targeted Oncology (TargetedOnc) play an important role in the dissemination of oncology news to patients and clinicians; however, the quality of the content on these websites has not been assessed. Our study aimed to analyze content from these websites and assess financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) amongst speakers interviewed on these websites.

Methods

Articles published on OncLive and TargetedOnc during October 2021, were prospectively captured and analyzed. The primary outcome of our study was the quality of oncology news reporting in OncLive and TargetedOnc. We assessed the FCOI amongst speakers using data from Open Payments.

Results

We examined 196 articles (OncLive 108, TargetedOnc 88). Limitations of cited research were reported in 7% (7/105) of OncLive and zero TargetedOnc articles. Benefit and risks in absolute numbers were reported in 28% (28/99) of OncLive and 16% (7/45) of TargetedOnc articles. Independent experts were quoted in 47% (51/108) and 51% (44/86) of the OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively (Table 3). Pharmaceutical executives were quoted in 18% (20/108) and 11% (10/88) of OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively. No FCOI disclosures were listed or reported for any articles. The mean general payment received from industry by United States physicians was $63,861 in 2019 and $39,639 in 2020.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates low quality and potentially biased reporting of oncology news on OncLive and TargetedOnc. Careful safeguards, oversight and reporting of relevant FCOI are needed to maintain the quality and transparency of content being provided.

查看原文本刊更多论文

两大肿瘤学媒体网站的内容报道质量：OncLive和Targeted oncology

简介肿瘤学媒体网站，如肿瘤学直播（OncLive）和靶向肿瘤学（TargetedOnc），在向患者和临床医生传播肿瘤学新闻方面发挥着重要作用；然而，这些网站的内容质量尚未得到评估。我们的研究旨在分析这些网站的内容，并评估在这些网站上接受采访的演讲者之间的财务利益冲突（FCOI）。方法前瞻性地收集和分析2021年10月在OncLive和TargetedOnc上发表的文章。我们研究的主要结果是OncLive和TargetedOnc的肿瘤学新闻报道质量。我们使用Open Payments的数据评估了演讲者的FCOI。结果我们检查了196篇文章（OncLive 108，TargetedOnc 88）。7%（7/105）的OncLive和零篇TargetedOnc文章报告了引用研究的局限性。28%（28/99）的OncLive和16%（7/45）的TargetedOnc文章报告了绝对数量的收益和风险。OncLive和TargetedOnc的文章分别有47%（51/108）和51%（44/86）引用了独立专家的话（表3）。OncLive和TargetedOnc的文章中分别有18%（20/108）和11%（10/88）引用了制药高管的话。没有列出或报告任何文章的FCOI披露。2019年，美国医生从行业获得的平均一般付款为63861美元，2020年为39639美元。结论我们的研究表明，OncLive和TargetedOnc上的肿瘤学新闻报道质量低，可能存在偏见。需要对相关FCOI进行仔细的保障、监督和报告，以保持所提供内容的质量和透明度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊