From probability to proof: The respective roles of scientific reviews and the non‐scientific press in the publicizing of medical research and its clinical applications

Abstract

Can and should clearly denned distinctions between probability and proof be offered to the public by the mass media in response to popular demand for the latest medical information? Isn't the need to know both legitimate and ever‐more pronounced?

The pressure for prompt public disclosure of clinical trial or medical research results emanates from a variety of highly vocal sources (the patients themselves, the investigators, the business world, the new academic commentators, the mass media, the healthy population and its requirement for “healthful”; life styles). And yet in spite of all this pressure, clinical research but rarely moves forward with a giant leap. Reasonable solutions in view of balanced and equitable release of information both to and by mass media have been proposed in editorials highlighted by the best‐known medical journals. On the one hand, the critical importance of the mass media in transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community has been stressed. On the other hand, the highly decisive role of the best‐known medical journals in the furthering of objective release of clinical research or trial results has been corroborated by several recent initiatives of best‐known medical journal editors. A great step forward in dealings between medical journals and the mass media was approved in London in 1993 by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, by dint of four main recommendations. These balanced and equitable recommendations may at one and the same time: stimulate legitimate public demand for access to important medical information without unreasonable delay; and prevent that media reports on scientific research lead to wide‐spread dissemination of premature and inaccurate conclusions.