A case study of a retracted systematic review on interactive health communication applications: impact on media, scientists, and patients.
BACKGROUND
In October 2004, a flawed systematic review entitled "Interactive Health Communication Applications for People with Chronic Disease" was published in the Cochrane Library, accompanied by several press releases in which authors warned the public of the negative health consequences of interactive health communication applications, including the Internet. Within days of the review's publication, scientists identified major coding errors and other methodological problems that invalidated the principal conclusions of the study and led to a retraction. While the original study results and their negative conclusions were widely publicized in the media, the retraction seemed to go unnoticed.


OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to document an unprecedented case of misinformation from a Cochrane review and its impact on media, scientists, and patients. As well, it aims to identify the generic factors leading to the incident and suggest remedies.


METHODS
This was a qualitative study of the events leading to the retraction of the publication and of the reactions from media, scientists, and patients. This includes a review and content analysis of academic and mass media articles responding to the publication and retraction. Mass media articles were retrieved in May 2005 from LexisNexis Academic and Google and were classified and tallied. The extended case method is employed, and the analysis is also applied to comparable publishing events.


RESULTS
A search on LexisNexis Academic database with the query "Elizabeth Murray AND health" for the period of June 2004 to May 2005 revealed a total of 15 press reports, of which only 1 addressed the retraction. Google was searched for references to the review, and the first 200 retrieved hits were analyzed. Of these, 170 pages were not related to the review. Of the remaining 30 pages, 23 (77%) were reports about the original publication that did not mention the retraction, 1 (3%) was a bibliography not mentioning the retraction, and 6 (20%) addressed the retraction, of which only 1 was a non-Cochrane-related source.


CONCLUSIONS
Analyzed retrievals showed that the mass media gave more coverage to the Cochrane review than to the retraction or to a related systematic review with a similar scope but a different conclusion. Questionable results were prematurely disseminated, oversimplified, and sensationalized, while the retraction was hardly noticed by the public. Open commentary by scientists and patients helped to rapidly identify the errors but did not prevent or correct the dissemination of misinformation.
Rada
Roy
R
Department of Information Systems, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA. rada@umbc.edu
D006801:Humans; D003146:Communications Media; D006293:Health Promotion; D033181:Information Dissemination; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D009862:Online Systems; D010361:Patients; D012180:Retraction of Publication as Topic; D012586:Science; D014584:User-Computer Interface; D000078202:Systematic Reviews as Topic