The unreliability of TV medical talk shows

[MeSci]

BMJ 2014; 349 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7346 (Published 17 December 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g7346

1. Christina Korownyk, associate professor of family medicine1,
2. Michael R Kolber, associate professor of family medicine1,
3. James McCormack, professor of pharmacy3,
4. Vanessa Lam, research assistant2,
5. Kate Overbo, research assistant2,
6. Candra Cotton, pharmacist1,
7. Caitlin Finley, research assistant1,
8. Ricky D Turgeon, pharmacist3,
9. Scott Garrison, associate professor of family medicine1,
10. Adrienne J Lindblad, associate clinical professor of family medicine1,
11. Hoan Linh Banh, associate professor of family medicine1,
12. Denise Campbell-Scherer, associate professor of family medicine1,
13. Ben Vandermeer, biostatistician4,
14. G Michael Allan, professor of family medicine1

Correspondence to: C Korownyk tina.korownyk@ualberta.ca

• Accepted 19 November 2014

Abstract

Objective To determine the quality of health recommendations and claims made on popular medical talk shows.

Design Prospective observational study.

Setting Mainstream television media.

Sources Internationally syndicated medical television talk shows that air daily (The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors).

Interventions Investigators randomly selected 40 episodes of each of The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors from early 2013 and identified and evaluated all recommendations made on each program. A group of experienced evidence reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team, evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from each show.

Main outcomes measures Percentage of recommendations that are supported by evidence as determined by a team of experienced evidence reviewers. Secondary outcomes included topics discussed, the number of recommendations made on the shows, and the types and details of recommendations that were made.

Results We could find at least a case study or better evidence to support 54% (95% confidence interval 47% to 62%) of the 160 recommendations (80 from each show). For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. For recommendations in The Doctors, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 53% on The Doctors. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode and The Doctors 11. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%) and on The Doctors was to consult a healthcare provider (18%). A specific benefit was described for 43% and 41% of the recommendations made on the shows respectively. The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 11% on The Doctors. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest accompanied 0.4% of recommendations.

Conclusions Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.

Full text here.

 

[CFS_for_19_years]

TV was never meant to be a communication device for medical advice. It was developed for entertainment purposes and reporting the news. Anyone relying on Dr. Oz or The Doctors for medical advice is taking their chances.

 

[alex3619]

This is a complex issue.

Medical talk shows are probably better than what we would get from most of the internet. Which is to say, good sometimes and bad at others.

Yet we have to keep in mind that the average doctor is probably no better.

MOST of medical advice is not adequately supported by evidence or sound science. Some of what is claimed as "evidence based" is also wrong. Almost nothing to do with science, especially in complex domains, can be considered 100% reliable.

This is made worse by the dominance of evidence based management approaches in evidence based medicine. Science is being supplanted by bureaucracy, and is therefore probably as suspect if not more suspect than TV doctor advice. Quality evidence based medicine/practice appears to be rare. There is no substitute for individual doctors researching everything of concern on an ongoing basis, and not accepting even "authoritative" evidence based claims at face value. The conundrum is that doctors lack the time, resources and often even the training to do so adequately. Its a problem the medical profession and the health authorities have not resolved.

 

[MeSci]

TV was never meant to be a communication device for medical advice. It was developed for entertainment purposes and reporting the news. Anyone relying on Dr. Oz or The Doctors for medical advice is taking their chances.

The founding principles of the BBC were to inform, educate and entertain, and this is still their mission. To my mind there is much too much dumbing down of factual programmes nowadays. Few programmes satisfy my hunger for straight facts.

 

[barbc56]

Yet we have to keep in mind that the average doctor is probably no better.

I may be misreading this, but are you saying that the information we get on the media is on par with medical care from a doctor?

While the criticisms you site is certainly warrented, I wouldn't say that the medical advice we see in the media is on the same level as the care from the medical community.

The media is all about the financial payoff from ratings. Financial incentives are definitely found in the medical community, but I would think the type and quality of these incentives are different.

Barb

 

[barbc56]

TV was never meant to be a communication device for medical advice. It was developed for entertainment purposes and reporting the news. Anyone relying on Dr. Oz or The Doctors for medical advice is taking their chances.

I agree! Unfortunately, the reality is that there are people who don't realize this.
Barb

Barb

 

[alex3619]

I may be misreading this, but are you saying that the information we get on the media is on par with medical care from a doctor?

While the criticisms you site is certainly warrented, I wouldn't say that the medical advice we see in the media is on the same level as the care from the medical community.

The media is all about the financial payoff from ratings. Financial incentives are definitely found in the medical community, but I would think the type and quality of these incentives are different.

Barb

Not media in general, which is much worse than the average doctor, but Doctor talk shows. These are celebrity doctors.

 

[barbc56]

Not media in general, which is much worse than the average doctor, but Doctor talk shows. These are celebrity doctors

Thanks! I thought that's what you meant, but wasn't sure.
Barb