Jordan was gathering information for a research project on teens
and suicide. She came across a news article about how some
antidepressants increase the chances of suicidal thinking and
behavior in kids and teens. Jordan was confused. How could a
medicine that was supposed to help kids with depression actually
make them feel worse? She was also worried because her sister was
taking an antidepressant. After Jordan did some of her own research
and looked into the issue further, though, she discovered things
that set her mind at ease.
Often, news reports on health and medicine can be confusing -
and sometimes they can be downright scary. How do you know what is
important and accurate?
A Study - or Just a Story?
Large newspapers, magazines, TV networks, and radio stations
often have medical reporters on staff to cover developments in
health and medicine. Their job is to report complicated scientific
information in a way that's easy for regular people to
understand. Many health stories are accurate and balanced. But not
all are. Sometimes, reporters try to quickly cram information into
a short news story, and they may oversimplify the information. What
you see may not be the whole picture.
To catch a viewer's attention, news reports sometimes make
dramatic claims. In addition, medical news reports often focus on
people's personal stories, not scientific studies. Personal
stories are interesting, but often they don't prove anything
about health or treatments in general. It takes a well-done study
to do that. And sometimes these studies just aren't dramatic or
exciting enough to make the news.
Questions to Consider
When you hear about a new medical development, the first
question to ask yourself is whether the news is based on a
scientific study. Knowing there's a study behind the news is
only the first step, though. How the study was done (and who did
it) matters too.
For example:
Was the Study Done in People?
A lot of medical research is done in the laboratory or in lab
animals, not in people - at least, not at first. Lab studies help
scientists figure out whether a drug looks promising, how it works,
and whether there might be side effects. But what happens in a
laboratory does not necessarily work the same in people. These
studies are often a beginning - but they're usually not the end
of the story.
When watching or reading a news report about a new drug or
treatment, see if it tells you whether the findings involved
animals or people. It might not - so you'll have to do some
sleuthing on your own to get the information.
Who Was in the Study?
Even if a study was done in people, it may not apply to you. For
instance, findings from studies involving only adults may not be
true for teens. Results of all-male studies may not apply to women.
Research studies usually list who took part - their sex, age, and
other characteristics. Are these people like you?
In addition to who is in a study, you'll also need to keep
in mind how many people took part in it. The more people in the
study, the more likely it is that the study's findings will
hold true for the whole population. Sometimes a study's results
are announced with a big splash and then it turns out that the
study only involved a few people. When researchers do the same
study using the hundreds or thousands of people necessary to get
really accurate (or "significant") results, those results
might be different.
It's also important for the study to follow patients long
enough to be sure that a treatment really works, and that
additional or more serious side effects don't develop over
time.
How Was the Study Designed?
There are lots of ways researchers look into new treatments and
information that can help people stay healthier. Sometimes they
look back at people's medical records or ask them questions to
find out what might have put them at more (or less) risk for a
health condition. Those studies, called
retrospective studies
, can provide useful clues, but they're only as reliable as a
person's memory or the accuracy of medical records.
Prospective studies
are usually better. They look forward, not backward. The best of
these studies follow thousands of people long enough to see whether
the things they do - like diet and exercise - have a good or bad
effect on their health.
For new drugs or treatments,
randomized, controlled clinical trials
are the best way for deciding whether a treatment works. In this
kind of research, some of the participants get the drug, vitamin,
or other therapy being tested. Others get what is called a
placebo
(a fake treatment or sugar pill that contains no medicine at all).
In this type of study, the patients are "blinded" - they
don't know who is getting the treatment and who is getting the
placebo until the trial is over. That way, their response to the
drug or placebo can't be influenced by whether they think they
have been taking the real drug or not. In a
double-blind
study, neither the patients nor the researchers know which patients
have taken the drug or the placebo until the study is over.
It's rare for one study to be the final word. Medical
knowledge comes from many studies done over time - and frequently
there are contradictions along the way. Often, different studies of
a particular treatment or condition, all done properly, can still
have different (or even completely opposite) results.
Also, the news media (and even researchers themselves!) are more
likely to report the findings of a study if that study shows
results that are different from what is thought to be true. For
example, the media are much more likely to do a story about a study
that shows that eating a particular type of food may help prevent
cancer. But other studies may show that eating that food
doesn't really make much difference.
The scientific community can take into account all the different
studies and decide that eating the food might not really help a
person avoid cancer. But to the regular person who just hears about
one study through the news, that food suddenly becomes a
cancer-fighting miracle.
Where Do Reporters Get Their Stories?
Sometimes, reporters get their news stories by following what is
published in medical journals. The best medical and scientific
journals - like
The New England Journal of Medicine
,
The Journal of the American Medical Association
,
Pediatrics
,
Science
, and
Nature
- carefully review studies before publishing them so the
information is trustworthy.
These publications are written for the scientific community, and
the language in them can be hard for people who aren't doctors
or scientists to understand. News reporters who get their
information from scientific journals might do a good job of
explaining the study and what it means - but not always.
Some reporters don't always wait until something is
published before reporting it as news. Sometimes reporters hear
information from researchers before a study has even been published
and they want to bring it to the public's attention quickly.
Without a published study, though, a reporter may not have all the
facts.
So how do you get closer to the truth?
Doing Your Own Research
You can get additional information about a news report on the
Internet. Put keywords from the news report into a search engine
and see what comes up. The results will give you lots of different
perspectives - particularly if the issue is big news - so
you're not relying on just one news report for the facts.
You'll need to screen what you see, though. Many of the sites
that show up in search results may not have the most accurate and
up-to-date information.
On commercial websites (sites with URLs that end in .com), look to
see if the site has advertising. If it does, it may be biased in
favor of the advertiser. Of course, having advertising on a site
doesn't necessarily mean it is biased. But if you're going
to be a good "information consumer," you need to take
that possibility into account.
Also check to see whether a doctor or other medical expert has
reviewed the information you're reading, and whether the date
on the information is recent.
The websites of government health agencies - such as the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) - usually give accurate and unbiased
information. Established medical organizations, such as the
American Academy of Pediatrics, and associations, such as the
American Psychiatric Association, are other good sources.
Getting Help
The best way to get a full understanding of medical news is to
ask someone like a doctor or science teacher for help in figuring
out what it all means.
Jordan talked to her science teacher about the antidepressant
story. She helped Jordan understand that certain antidepressants
(like the one Jordan's sister was taking) are OK for teens. She
also helped her discover that the study results didn't mean all
the teens in the study committed suicide while on the medication.
In fact, in this study, none of the patients on the medication
committed suicide. Instead, some reported thinking about suicide
more. Jordan also learned about how important it is for teens on
antidepressants to see their doctors regularly so their medications
can be monitored and adjusted.
Reading or watching medical news isn't a substitute for seeing
a doctor. Trying to diagnose yourself or changing or stopping your
medicine based on something you've read or heard can be
dangerous. News reports often focus only on the positive and
don't mention the downsides, or side effects, of a medication
or other treatment. Or they may report a dramatic or scary side
effect of a medication that is really very rare, or fail to mention
the large number of patients who might get very sick if they
didn't take the drug. Your doctor can help you weigh the
benefits and risks.
As Jordan discovered, understanding what's behind medical
news can take away worry and concern. And knowing more can help you
ask good questions about your own health when you see your
doctor.
Reviewed by:
Neil Izenberg, MD
Date reviewed: May 2006
Note: All information is for educational purposes only. For specific medical advice,
diagnoses, and treatment, consult your doctor.
© 1995-2009 The Nemours Foundation/KidsHealth. All rights reserved.