Media

+

Doctor

Australia

rating information

News stories will be identified by daily reviews of the major media outlet websites using a hand-searching approach.

In order to be eligible for review, the article should:

Be relevant to the management and prevention of disease in the source country, in particular should relate to claims about new treatments, procedures or diagnostic tests
Discuss an intervention that is intended for use on humans
Make explicit or implicit claims of efficacy, lack of efficacy, safety or lack of safety
Be published in the mainstream media of the source country

Reviewers are also asked to provide comments on the stories which may include the use of sensationalist words.

rating instrument

Category: Adverse Effects

Rating Criteria	Satisfactory	Not Satisfactory
Benefit to harm ratio	Tries to balance reporting of both benefits and harms or gives some sense of the ratio between the two.	No mention of whether therapy has more benefits or more harms.
Novelty of harm	Mentions whether or not harm was previously identified or mentions what is added to previous knowledge about harm.	No mention of whether or not harm has previously been recognised.
Evidence	Where relevant there is mention of strength of evidence and correct interpretation.	No mention of the nature of clinical research that lead to recognition of harm or increased frequency of harm.
Quantification of harms	Even some quantification of harm rates an 'S'.	No quantification of harm or describes it using words such as 'minor' or 'not serious'.
Number of people affected by harm	Some quantification of number of people or percent of people affected by the harm.	No mention of numbers or percent of people taking treatment expected to be harmed.
Stratification of patients with regard to harm.	Mentions which groups of patients are most likely to be harmed.	No mention of which groups of patients are most likely to suffer harm.
Sources of information	Provides detail on information sources and their potential COI, and reports independent source or mentions unsuccessful attempt to obtain corroboration.	No mention of sources or possible conflicts of interest. No attempt at independent corroboration.
Treatment options	Mentions alternatives and discusses whether alternatives are more or less harmful.	No mention of alternatives or whether the alternatives are more or less harmful.
Relies on Press Release	No obvious use of text from the press release.	Evidence from press release or other news storie that the journalist has relied on a press release as the only information source and used the text in the story.

Category: Complementary and Alternative Medicines

Rating Criteria	Satisfactory	Not Satisfactory
Novelty of remedy	Accurate information on the novelty of the remedy. Has it existed for many years in some cultures? Is it only now being tested?	Does not mention (or inaccurately represents) if remedy is genuinely new or just a re-formulation of an existing treatment or drug.
CAM classification	Accurately identifies it as CAM, mentions what type of CAM it is, ie, biological, energy, body-based, mind-body or whole systems and outlines other common names it is known as.	No mention of CAM, other common names or CAM classification.
Availability of Treatment	Accurate information regarding availability in Australia (registration, PBS status, what types of outlets its found in).	No mention of availability in Australia.
Treatment Options	Mentions appropriate alternatives (CAM and conventional) and provides comparative information.	No mention of alternatives or their comparative performance.
Disease Mongering	No evidence of disease mongering.	Frames risk factors (eg cholesterol) as a diseases. No mention or misrepresentation of natural history of disease. Exaggerates prevalence or incidence or medicalisation of normal human variation.
Evidence	There is mention of strength of evidence and correct interpretation.	No mention of the nature of clinical evidence or interpretation or discussion is inappropriate.
Quantification of Benefits of Treatment	Estimate in both absolute and relative frames, or absolute frome only or rates with and without remedy.	No quantitative estimate of benefit or in relative frame only.
Harms of Remedy	Balanced information about harms (frequency or seriousness).	No mention of potential harms or discounts harms.
Costs of Remedy	Mentions comparative costs and comments on cost-effectiveness.	No mention of costs or downplays cost as an issue.
Sources of Information	Provides detail on information sources and their potential COI, and reports independent source, or mentions unsuccessful attempt to obtain corroboration	No mention of sources or possible conflicts of interest No attempt at independent corroboration
Relies on Press Release	No obvious use of text from the press release	Evidence from press release or other news stories that the journalist has relied on a press release as the only information source and used the text in the story

Category: Diagnostic Test

Rating Criteria	Satisfactory	Not Satisfactory
Availability of Test	Accurate information on availability of test in Australia, incl Medicare status.	Does not mention availability of test in Australia
Novelty of Test	Accurate information on novelty (or lack of), and stage of development from bench discovery to clinical test.	Does not mention (or inaccurately represents) whether the test is genuinely new.
Diagnostic Options	Mentions appropriate alternatives and considers the need for a new test.	No mention of alternatives or their comparative performance
Disease Mongering	No obvious elements of disease-mongering	Frames risk factors (eg BMD cholesterol) as a disease, or No mention (or misrepresentation) of natural history of disease, or Exaggerates prevalence or incidence, or Medicalisation of normal human variation
Evidence	Where relevant, there is mention of how the research was done, the comparator test and description of the population who were tested.	No mention of the nature of clinical evidence. Mention of the nature of the evidence but interpretation or discussion is inappropriate No mention of the gold standard used.
Quantification of diagnostic accuracy and benefits	Mentions both sensitivity and specificity, or the numbers from which these are derived, or NPV and PPV. Considers the patient benefits from improved diagnostics.	No quantitative estimate of diagnostic accuracy. Estimate of sensitivity only, ignores specificity. No consideration of why diagnosis is useful
Potential harms of Testing	Balanced information about harms (frequency or seriousness)	No mention of harms, or discounts potential harms
Costs of Testing	Mentions comparative costs	No mention of costs, or downplays cost as an issue No comparative information on alternate tests.
Sources of Information	Provides detail on information sources and their potential COI, and reports independent source, or mentions unsuccessful attempt to obtain corroboration	No mention of sources or possible conflicts of interest No attempt at independent corroboration
Relies on Press Release	No obvious use of text from the press release	Evidence from press release or other news stories that the journalist has relied on a press release as the only information source and used the text in the story

Category: Other

Rating Criteria	Satisfactory	Not Satisfactory
Novelty of Treatment	Accurate information on novelty (or lack of)	Does not mention (or inaccurately represents) if treatment is genuinely new or just a re-formulation of an existing treatment, or another member of a well established drug class
Availability of Treatment	Accurate information on availability of treatment in Australia including reimbursement status (whre relevant)	Does not mention availability of treatment in Australia
Treatment Options	Mentions appropriate alternatives and provides comparative information	No mention of alternatives or their comparative performance
Disease Mongering	No obvious elements of disease-mongering	Frames risk factors (eg BMD cholesterol) as a disease, or No mention (or misrepresentation) of natural history of disease, or Exaggerates prevalence or incidence, or Medicalisation of normal human variation
Evidence	Where relevant, there is mention of strength of evidence and correct interpretation	No mention of the nature of clinical evidence, esp RCTs Mention of the nature of the evidence but interpretation or discussion is inappropriate
Quantification of Benefits of Treatment	Estimate in both absolute and relative frames, or absolute frame only, or rates with and without treatment	No quantitative estimate of benefit Quantitative estimate in relative frame only
Harms of Treatment	Balanced information about harms (frequency or seriousness)	No mention of harms, or discounts potential harms
Costs of Treatment	Mentions comparative costs and comments on cost-effectiveness	No mention of costs, or downplays cost as an issue Mentions cost only, no comparative information
Sources of Information	Provides detail on information sources and their potential COI, and reports independent source, or mentions unsuccessful attempt to obtain corroboration	No mention of sources or possible conflicts of interest No attempt at independent corroboration
Relies on Press Release	No obvious use of text from the press release	Evidence from press release or other news stories that the journalist has relied on a press release as the only information source and used the text in the story

Category: Pharmaceutical

Rating Criteria	Satisfactory	Not Satisfactory
Novelty of Treatment	Accurate information on novelty (or lack of)	Does not mention (or inaccurately represents) if treatment is genuinely new or just a re-formulation of an existing treatment, or another member of a well established drug class
Availability of Treatment	Accurate information on availability of treatment in Australia (both registration and PBS status)	Does not mention availability of treatment in Australia
Treatment Options	Mentions appropriate alternatives and provides comparative information	No mention of alternatives or their comparative performance
Disease Mongering	No obvious elements of disease-mongering	Frames risk factors (eg BMD cholesterol) as a disease, or No mention (or misrepresentation) of natural history of disease, or Exaggerates prevalence or incidence, or Medicalisation of normal human variation
Evidence	Where relevant, there is mention of strength of evidence and correct interpretation	No mention of the nature of clinical evidence, esp RCTs Mention of the nature of the evidence but interpretation or discussion is inappropriate
Quantification of Benefits of Treatment	Estimate in both absolute and relative frames, or absolute frame only, or rates with and without treatment	No quantitative estimate of benefit Quantitative estimate in relative frame only
Harms of Treatment	Balanced information about harms (frequency or seriousness)	No mention of harms, or discounts potential harms
Costs of Treatment	Mentions comparative costs and comments on cost-effectiveness	No mention of costs, or downplays cost as an issue Mentions cost only, no comparative information
Sources of Information	Provides detail on information sources and their potential COI, and reports independent source, or mentions unsuccessful attempt to obtain corroboration	No mention of sources or possible conflicts of interest No attempt at independent corroboration
Relies on Press Release	No obvious use of text from the press release	Evidence from press release or other news stories that the journalist has relied on a press release as the only information source and used the text in the story

Category: Surgical Procedure

Rating Criteria	Satisfactory	Not Satisfactory
Novelty of Treatment	Accurate information on novelty (or lack of)	Does not mention (or inaccurately represents) if treatment is genuinely new or just a re-formulation of an existing treatment, or another member of a well established drug class
Availability of Treatment	Accurate information on availability of treatment in Australia, including reimbursement (Medicare) status	Does not mention availability of treatment in Australia
Treatment Options	Mentions appropriate alternatives and provides comparative information	No mention of alternatives or their comparative performance
Disease Mongering	No obvious elements of disease-mongering	Frames risk factors (eg BMD cholesterol) as a disease, or No mention (or misrepresentation) of natural history of disease, or Exaggerates prevalence or incidence, or Medicalisation of normal human variation
Evidence	Where relevant, there is mention of strength of evidence and correct interpretation	No mention of the nature of clinical evidence, esp RCTs Mention of the nature of the evidence but interpretation or discussion is inappropriate
Quantification of Benefits of Treatment	Estimate in both absolute and relative frames, or absolute frame only, or rates with and without treatment	No quantitative estimate of benefit Quantitative estimate in relative frame only
Harms of Treatment	Balanced information about harms (frequency or seriousness)	No mention of harms, or discounts potential harms
Costs of Treatment	Mentions comparative costs and comments on cost-effectiveness	No mention of costs, or downplays cost as an issue Mentions cost only, no comparative information
Sources of Information	Provides detail on information sources and their potential COI, and reports independent source, or mentions unsuccessful attempt to obtain corroboration	No mention of sources or possible conflicts of interest No attempt at independent corroboration
Relies on Press Release	No obvious use of text from the press release	Evidence from press release or other news stories that the journalist has relied on a press release as the only information source and used the text in the story