Commercial influence and covid-19

Moynihan, Ray; Macdonald, Helen; Bero, Lisa; Godlee, Fiona

doi:10.1136/bmj.m2456

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies show that infodemics are closely related to the rapid and free flow of (mis)information through the Internet, social media platforms and online news ( 78 ). Although, these new media present a high potential to massively spread evidence-based knowledge, the speed and lack of control of health information contents (even coming from the scientific community) can easily undermine basic standards for trustworthy evidence and increase the risk of bias in research conclusions ( 79 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Infodemics During Disease Outbreaks: A Systematic Review

Álvarez‐Gálvez

Suárez-Lledó

Rojas-García

2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The widespread use of social media represents an unprecedented opportunity for health promotion. We have more information and evidence-based health related knowledge, for instance about healthy habits or possible risk behaviors. However, these tools also carry some disadvantages since they also open the door to new social and health risks, in particular during health emergencies. This systematic review aims to study the determinants of infodemics during disease outbreaks, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative methods.Methods: We searched research articles in PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Sociological abstracts, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Additional research works were included by searching bibliographies of electronically retrieved review articles.Results: Finally, 42 studies were included in the review. Five determinants of infodemics were identified: (1) information sources; (2) online communities' structure and consensus; (3) communication channels (i.e., mass media, social media, forums, and websites); (4) messages content (i.e., quality of information, sensationalism, etc.,); and (5) context (e.g., social consensus, health emergencies, public opinion, etc.). Studied selected in this systematic review identified different measures to combat misinformation during outbreaks.Conclusion: The clarity of the health promotion messages has been proven essential to prevent the spread of a particular disease and to avoid potential risks, but it is also fundamental to understand the network structure of social media platforms and the emergency context where misinformation might dynamically evolve. Therefore, in order to prevent future infodemics, special attention will need to be paid both to increase the visibility of evidence-based knowledge generated by health organizations and academia, and to detect the possible sources of mis/disinformation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Infodemics During Disease Outbreaks: A Systematic Review

Álvarez‐Gálvez

Suárez-Lledó

Rojas-García

2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A consortium should coordinate the design, implementation, and replication of comparative effectiveness assessments, ideally using individual participant data network meta-analyses. A network of leading independent research organisations,44 regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies, and payers could lead this effort in collaboration with WHO. A recent health technology assessment of biological agents for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany has shown the feasibility of this approach.…”

Section: Areas For Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Producing and using timely comparative evidence on drugs: lessons from clinical trials for covid-19

Naci

Kesselheim

Røttingen

et al. 2020

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the early days of the novel coronavirus outbreak, a record number of studies have been launched to test several repurposed and new medicines as potential treatments for covid-19. 1 An analysis by the news organisation STAT identified over 1000 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between January and June 2020. 2 This is a testament to the research and clinical community's commitment to identify effective treatments for covid-19. However, the large volume of studies may paradoxically limit the generation of robust evidence and complicate the formulation of trustworthy guidance and decisions related to drug use if the current research is duplicative and redundant or produces conflicting data. 3-5 Indeed, the multiplicity of research on candidate therapeutics for covid-19 has exposed important flaws and failures in the current evidence ecosystem. 6 7 Crucially, these limitations also affect the full spectrum of research on new health technologies. 8 9 Users of evidence across the healthcare system (patients, clinicians, health technology assessment bodies, guideline developers, payers) need timely data on how different treatments compare with each other in terms of their benefits and harms-their comparative effectiveness. Producing comparative evidence and ensuring its rapid translation into trustworthy guidance requires extensive coordination and collaboration between the researchers conducting clinical trials, those conducting comparative effectiveness assessments, and those producing guidance. 8 9 The experience of covid-19 highlights the difficulties in making comparative assessments and suggests areas for improvement.

show abstract

“…Tests are just one of many commercial opportunities that have opened up with this pandemic. Urgency tends to cut caution, allowing drugs and devices onto the market without adequate scrutiny, says our editorial this week 8. We want to thank all those who have signed the call for more independence from commercial interests in medical research, education, and practice, and we hope that others will add their signatures (bmj.com/commercial-influence).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%