批判性地阅读科学新闻并寻找原始研究:主流媒体上与COVID-19疫苗相关的误导性标题的一个例子。

Petar Milovanovic
{"title":"批判性地阅读科学新闻并寻找原始研究:主流媒体上与COVID-19疫苗相关的误导性标题的一个例子。","authors":"Petar Milovanovic","doi":"10.1177/18333583211060034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In July 2021, after a representative of the Serbian health authorities had cited a recent study from Sri Lanka in the media that the Sinopharm antiCOVID-19 vaccine (BBIBPCorV) was very effective against the Delta strain of SARSCoV-2, I tried to locate the original study. The headlines in the Serbian media read: ‘Sinopharm is the most effective vaccine against the delta variant, studies show’ (RTS, 2021). While conducting a simple online search using a combination of keywords, I was surprised to come across several articles in the English language with headlines suggesting that the Sinopharm vaccine is not effective against the Delta strain (‘Sinopharm’s COVID-19 shot induces weaker antibody responses to Delta -study shows’) (Reuters, 2021). Unfortunately, most people will not read the full articles, let alone attempt to locate the original study to locate the actual results. Reading the full text of the original manuscript revealed that the Sri Lankan study (Jeewandara et al., 2021) had reported that the titre of specific antibodies was comparable between Sinopharm-vaccinated individuals and those who survived a natural infection with the Delta variant. Another observation reported in the study was that the titre of antibodies specific to the Delta strain in vaccinated individuals was lower than that of the original Wuhan variant. It was clear from the text of the original study that the authors had not actually compared the different vaccines; thus, the headlines in the Serbian media implying that this vaccine was ‘the most effective’ had not accurately described the cited research. Nevertheless, the Serbian media headlines correctly emphasised the protection aspect, given that the vaccine obviously offers seroconversion comparable to that of a natural infection. In contrast, the English-language media headlines wrongly emphasised that the vaccine offers a ‘weaker response to Delta’; the study actually showed a weaker response compared with the Wuhan variant, but similar to a natural infection with the Delta strain. These authors had not studied the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection, hospitalisation or death; rather, they had focused on the evaluation of specific antibodies and T-cell responses. Of note, this was a manuscript uploaded to a preprint server and not a peer-reviewed article; it should also have been read critically andwill, hopefully, soon go through fair review by experts in the field. In the meantime, this is an exemplary case of how easy it is to misinterpret research findings, and how easily some of the ‘fake news’ develops. Special care is needed to avoid cases such as this, to avoid further erosion of people’s trust in health systems and vaccines protecting against COVID-19. This case is also a beautiful reminder that we should always refer to the primary literature.","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":"52 2","pages":"132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10170247/pdf/10.1177_18333583211060034.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Read science news critically and look for original studies: An example of misleading headlines related to COVID-19 vaccines in mainstream media.\",\"authors\":\"Petar Milovanovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/18333583211060034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In July 2021, after a representative of the Serbian health authorities had cited a recent study from Sri Lanka in the media that the Sinopharm antiCOVID-19 vaccine (BBIBPCorV) was very effective against the Delta strain of SARSCoV-2, I tried to locate the original study. The headlines in the Serbian media read: ‘Sinopharm is the most effective vaccine against the delta variant, studies show’ (RTS, 2021). While conducting a simple online search using a combination of keywords, I was surprised to come across several articles in the English language with headlines suggesting that the Sinopharm vaccine is not effective against the Delta strain (‘Sinopharm’s COVID-19 shot induces weaker antibody responses to Delta -study shows’) (Reuters, 2021). Unfortunately, most people will not read the full articles, let alone attempt to locate the original study to locate the actual results. Reading the full text of the original manuscript revealed that the Sri Lankan study (Jeewandara et al., 2021) had reported that the titre of specific antibodies was comparable between Sinopharm-vaccinated individuals and those who survived a natural infection with the Delta variant. Another observation reported in the study was that the titre of antibodies specific to the Delta strain in vaccinated individuals was lower than that of the original Wuhan variant. It was clear from the text of the original study that the authors had not actually compared the different vaccines; thus, the headlines in the Serbian media implying that this vaccine was ‘the most effective’ had not accurately described the cited research. Nevertheless, the Serbian media headlines correctly emphasised the protection aspect, given that the vaccine obviously offers seroconversion comparable to that of a natural infection. In contrast, the English-language media headlines wrongly emphasised that the vaccine offers a ‘weaker response to Delta’; the study actually showed a weaker response compared with the Wuhan variant, but similar to a natural infection with the Delta strain. These authors had not studied the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection, hospitalisation or death; rather, they had focused on the evaluation of specific antibodies and T-cell responses. Of note, this was a manuscript uploaded to a preprint server and not a peer-reviewed article; it should also have been read critically andwill, hopefully, soon go through fair review by experts in the field. In the meantime, this is an exemplary case of how easy it is to misinterpret research findings, and how easily some of the ‘fake news’ develops. Special care is needed to avoid cases such as this, to avoid further erosion of people’s trust in health systems and vaccines protecting against COVID-19. This case is also a beautiful reminder that we should always refer to the primary literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"volume\":\"52 2\",\"pages\":\"132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10170247/pdf/10.1177_18333583211060034.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583211060034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18333583211060034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Read science news critically and look for original studies: An example of misleading headlines related to COVID-19 vaccines in mainstream media.
In July 2021, after a representative of the Serbian health authorities had cited a recent study from Sri Lanka in the media that the Sinopharm antiCOVID-19 vaccine (BBIBPCorV) was very effective against the Delta strain of SARSCoV-2, I tried to locate the original study. The headlines in the Serbian media read: ‘Sinopharm is the most effective vaccine against the delta variant, studies show’ (RTS, 2021). While conducting a simple online search using a combination of keywords, I was surprised to come across several articles in the English language with headlines suggesting that the Sinopharm vaccine is not effective against the Delta strain (‘Sinopharm’s COVID-19 shot induces weaker antibody responses to Delta -study shows’) (Reuters, 2021). Unfortunately, most people will not read the full articles, let alone attempt to locate the original study to locate the actual results. Reading the full text of the original manuscript revealed that the Sri Lankan study (Jeewandara et al., 2021) had reported that the titre of specific antibodies was comparable between Sinopharm-vaccinated individuals and those who survived a natural infection with the Delta variant. Another observation reported in the study was that the titre of antibodies specific to the Delta strain in vaccinated individuals was lower than that of the original Wuhan variant. It was clear from the text of the original study that the authors had not actually compared the different vaccines; thus, the headlines in the Serbian media implying that this vaccine was ‘the most effective’ had not accurately described the cited research. Nevertheless, the Serbian media headlines correctly emphasised the protection aspect, given that the vaccine obviously offers seroconversion comparable to that of a natural infection. In contrast, the English-language media headlines wrongly emphasised that the vaccine offers a ‘weaker response to Delta’; the study actually showed a weaker response compared with the Wuhan variant, but similar to a natural infection with the Delta strain. These authors had not studied the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection, hospitalisation or death; rather, they had focused on the evaluation of specific antibodies and T-cell responses. Of note, this was a manuscript uploaded to a preprint server and not a peer-reviewed article; it should also have been read critically andwill, hopefully, soon go through fair review by experts in the field. In the meantime, this is an exemplary case of how easy it is to misinterpret research findings, and how easily some of the ‘fake news’ develops. Special care is needed to avoid cases such as this, to avoid further erosion of people’s trust in health systems and vaccines protecting against COVID-19. This case is also a beautiful reminder that we should always refer to the primary literature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信