Résumé
Para evaluar la confiabilidad y precisión de la información médica proporcionada por los medios de comunicación en Argentina, alumnos avanzados de medicina, que desconocían los objetivos del estudio, identificaron aseveraciones relacionadas a temas médicos transmitidas por medios de comunicación. Los hallazgos fueron contrastados con recomendaciones realizadas por médicos expertos en la toma de decisiones basada en evidencias. Las recomendaciones de los medios y las confeccionadas por los expertos fueron comparadas en relación a su fuerza y dirección. Se identificaron 81 recomendaciones/preguntas las que fueron contestadas por los expertos, 15 con alta, 18 con moderada, 30 con baja y 18 con muy baja calidad de evidencia. Solamente el 53% (IC95% 42-64%) de las recomendaciones hechas por los medios de comunicación coincidieron en la dirección (a favor o en contra de la intervención) con las realizadas por los expertos y el 28% (IC95% 18-39%) fueron calificadas como inadecuadas (diferencias significativas tanto en dirección como en fuerza). El análisis del subgrupo de recomendaciones realizadas en los medios por profesionales de la salud mostró una coincidencia en la dirección del 71% (IC95% 56-86%) con 17% (IC95% 6-33%) de recomendaciones inadecuadas, OR = 0.35 (IC95% 0.1-1.1) en relación a las no realizadas por profesionales de la salud. Se concluye que la información médica que proveen los medios de comunicación en Argentina es poco confiable, lo que posiblemente tenga un impacto negativo sobre el funcionamiento del sistema de salud y la relación de los médicos con sus pacientes.
To evaluate the certainty and accuracy of the healthcare information provided by the mass media in Argentina, a group of senior medical students, blind to the study objectives, identified healthcare related statements transmitted through mass media. These findings were challenged against the recommendations of a group of physicians trained in evidence-based decision making (EBDM). We compared the strength and direction of the mass media recommendations with those of experts on EBDM. Eighty one recommendations/questions were identified and answered by the experts on EBDM, 15 with high, 18 with moderate, 30 with low and 18 with very low quality of evidence. Only 53% (CI95% 42-64%) of the mass media recommendations agreed with the expert recommendation in direction (for or against) and 28% (CI95% 18-39%) were classified as inappropriate (significant discrepancies both in direction and strength). Subgroup analysis revealed that 71% (CI95% 56-86%) of there commendations made by professionals in mass media agreed with experts in direction and 17% (IC95% 6-33%) were classified as inappropriate, OR = 0.35 (CI95% 0.1-1.1) compared to recommendations in mass media by non-professionals. We conclude that the healthcare information provided by mass media in Argentina is unreliable; this fact can probably have a negative impact in the health system performance and physician-patient relationship.
Sujets)
Humains , Éducation du patient comme sujet/normes , Médecine factuelle/normes , Confiance , Information en santé des consommateurs/normes , Mass-médias/normes , Personnel médical hospitalier/normes , Argentine , Étudiant médecine , Éducation du patient comme sujet/statistiques et données numériques , Études transversales , Médecine factuelle/méthodes , Prise de décision , Personnel médical hospitalier/statistiques et données numériquesRésumé
The PLATO study evaluated the efficacy of adding ticagrelor, instead of clopidogrel, to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome, which showed surprisingly positive results making the drug acceptable to regulatory agencies and specialty societies worldwide. Notwithstanding the aforementioned success, contradictory information supplied by critical analysis was submitted by the sponsor. The controversial findings revealed several aspects that are difficult to explain, threatening the veracity of the studys conclusions. Mortality rate pattern, excessive benefit not comparable to prior studies, unexplained loss of follow-up development and inconsistency in findings in accordance with the country, the type of events arbitrator and monitoring committee are some of the most questionable issues. Dubious reaction to this trial is based on the fact that the information could not be found in published articles. This complex situation poses a challenge to the critical analysis of the text and raises questions as to how far the conflicts of financial interest influenced the development of the study, the communication of its results and probably, acceptance of the drug for commercial use.