Einführung zur Qualität von Medizinjournalismus und erste Einschätzungen zur COVID-19-Berichterstattung

Daube, Dominik; Ruhrmann, Georg

doi:10.1007/s00103-020-03249-x

“…The past year (2020) witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of published scientific papers supposedly reporting results of the required research. There is a great concern that publication standards have been compromised as the peer-review process is becoming hasty and weak [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. There are suspicions that scientific publications concerning COVID-19 are ranging from robust and rigorous studies to dishonest, incompetent, or fraudulent studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has the Pandemic Triggered a ‘Paperdemic’? Towards an Assessment of Diagnostic Indicators for COVID-19

Rushdi

¹

,

Serag

²

2021

IJPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a preliminary step towards the assessment of an alarming widespread belief that victims of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 include the quality and accuracy of scientific publications about it. Our initial results suggest that this belief cannot be readily ignored, denied, dismissed or refuted, since some genuine supporting evidence can be forwarded for it. This evidence includes an obvious increase in retractions of papers published about the COVID-19 pandemic plus an extra-ordinary phenomenon of inconsistency that we report herein. In fact, we provide a novel method for validating any purported set of the four most prominent indicators of diagnostic testing (Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value), by observing that these indicators constitute three rather than four independent quantities. This observation has virtually been unheard of in the open medical literature, and hence researchers have not taken it into consideration. We define two functions, which serve as consistency criteria, since each of them checks consistency for any set of four numerical values (naturally belonging to the interval [0.0,1.0]) claimed to be the four basic diagnostic indicators. Most of the data we came across in various international journals met our criteria for consistency, but in a few cases, there were obvious unexplained blunders. We explored the same consistency problem for some diagnostic data published in 2020 concerning the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and observed that the afore-mentioned unexplained blunders tended to be on the rise. A systematic extensive statistical assessment of this presumed tendency is warranted.

show abstract

“…The past year (2020) witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of published scientific papers supposedly reporting results of the required research. There is a great concern that publication standards have been compromised as the peer-review process is becoming hasty and weak [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. There are suspicions that scientific publications concerning COVID-19 are ranging from robust and rigorous studies to dishonest, incompetent, or fraudulent studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has the Pandemic Triggered a ‘Paperdemic’? Towards an Assessment of Diagnostic Indicators for COVID-19

AISDL¹

2021

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a preliminary step towards the assessment of an alarming widespread belief that victims of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 include the quality and accuracy of scientific publications about it. Our initial results suggest that this belief cannot be readily ignored, denied, dismissed or refuted, since some genuine supporting evidence can be forwarded for it. This evidence includes an obvious increase in retractions of papers published about the COVID-19 pandemic plus an extra-ordinary phenomenon of inconsistency that we report herein. In fact, we provide a novel method for validating any purported set of the four most prominent indicators of diagnostic testing (Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value), by observing that these indicators constitute three rather than four independent quantities. This observation has virtually been unheard of in the open medical literature, and hence researchers have not taken it into consideration. We define two functions, which serve as consistency criteria, since each of them checks consistency for any set of four numerical values (naturally belonging to the interval [0.0,1.0]) claimed to be the four basic diagnostic indicators. Most of the data we came across in various international journals met our criteria for consistency, but in a few cases, there were obvious unexplained blunders. We explored the same consistency problem for some diagnostic data published in 2020 concerning the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and observed that the afore-mentioned unexplained blunders tended to be on the rise. A systematic extensive statistical assessment of this resumed tendency is warranted.

show abstract

“…9], untersucht.Wir wissen aus empirischen Studien, dass Journalistinnen und Journalisten je nach Einstellungen und Vorwissen sowie nach Anlass und Ereignis spezifisch und unterschiedlich über gesundheitliche und wissenschaftliche Themen im Allgemeinen [10][11][12] berichten. Dies gilt speziell auch für Pandemien [8,[13][14][15].…”

unclassified

“…Diese Perspektive ist für zukünftige Studien interessant, um die Thematik kritisch reflektieren und diskutieren zu können.Nowakowska et al zeigen eine hohe Veröffentlichungsdichte von COVID-19bezogenen Studien, unter anderem bedingt durch ein beschleunigtes Vorgehen bei der Prüfung und Veröffentlichung von COVID-19 bezogenen Studien[40]. Dies wirft bereits auch öffentlich diskutierte kritische Fragen nach der Belegkraft -wissenschaftliche Evidenz[15] -beziehungsweise auch nach der Relevanz der Studien auf: Wirkt sich diese schnelle Veröffentlichung positiv oder negativ auf die wissenschaftliche Evidenz und Relevanz aus [vgl. 41]?…”

unclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Die Rolle der Medien in der COVID-19-Pandemie

Ruhrmann

¹

,

Daube

²

2021

Infektionen Und Gesellschaft

Self Cite

7

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Der vorliegende Text ist eine überarbeitete und erweiterte Fassung des Vortrages, den Prof. Dr. Georg Ruhrmann am 30. Oktober 2020 im Rahmen der Tagung "Infektionen und Gesellschaft" gehalten hat. EinleitungPresse, Rundfunk und Social Web präsentieren seit Monaten dramatische Schlagzeilen, Texte und Titel. Es gibt zeitweilig seit März 2020 keine anderen Themen mehr. 1 Wir werden medial mit verschiedenartigsten Folgen von COVID-19 konfrontiert. Was kann Sozialwissenschaft angesichts von "so viel Wissen über unser Nichtwissen … und dem Zwang, unter Unsicherheit leben und handeln zu müssen" [2] schon "sehen" und "deuten" [3]? Was ist die Rolle der Medien? Wie berichten Medien von der laufenden Pandemie? Und: Wie lässt sich diese Berichterstattung systematisch analysieren [vgl. 4]? Damit verbunden sind zwei klassische Fragen: Dramatisieren die Medien eine ohnehin schon dramatische Lage zusätzlich? Oder wie ausgewogen repräsentieren sie die Akteurinnen und Akteure, Ereignisse und Entwicklungen [vgl. 5-7]? Diese Fragen wurden bereits bei früheren Pandemien, etwa der Schweinegrippe (H1N1) [vgl. 8], und der Ebola-Krise 2014 [vgl. 9], untersucht.Wir wissen aus empirischen Studien, dass Journalistinnen und Journalisten je nach Einstellungen und Vorwissen sowie nach Anlass und Ereignis spezifisch und unterschiedlich über gesundheitliche und wissenschaftliche Themen im Allgemeinen [10][11][12] berichten. Dies gilt speziell auch für Pandemien [8,[13][14][15].

show abstract

Einführung zur Qualität von Medizinjournalismus und erste Einschätzungen zur COVID-19-Berichterstattung

Cited by 10 publications

References 48 publications

Has the Pandemic Triggered a ‘Paperdemic’? Towards an Assessment of Diagnostic Indicators for COVID-19

Has the Pandemic Triggered a ‘Paperdemic’? Towards an Assessment of Diagnostic Indicators for COVID-19

Has the Pandemic Triggered a ‘Paperdemic’? Towards an Assessment of Diagnostic Indicators for COVID-19

Die Rolle der Medien in der COVID-19-Pandemie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About