A Case Study of a Retracted Systematic Review on Interactive Health Communication Applications: Impact on Media, Scientists, and Patients
2005
Impact of a Flawed Health Review
publication
Evidence: low
Author Information
Author(s): Rada Roy, Gunther Eysenbach, Andrew Kummervold
Primary Institution: University of Maryland Baltimore County
Hypothesis
What are the effects of a retracted systematic review on media, scientists, and patients?
Conclusion
The mass media gave more coverage to the flawed review than to its retraction, leading to widespread misinformation.
Supporting Evidence
- The flawed review was widely publicized, but the retraction received minimal attention.
- Only 1 out of 15 press reports mentioned the retraction.
- Patients were largely unaware of the retraction and continued to discuss the flawed findings.
Takeaway
A bad health study was shared a lot, but when it was found to be wrong, not many people heard about it.
Methodology
Qualitative study including content analysis of media articles and reactions to the retraction.
Potential Biases
Potential bias in how the original study was reported and sensationalized by the media.
Limitations
The study relies on qualitative data and may not capture all media responses.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website