Table 2 Measures of quality of reporting
From: Lay media reporting of rosiglitazone risk: extent, messaging and quality of reporting
Quality Indicator | Present n/N (%) |
|---|---|
Reporting of Risk | Â |
Cardiovascular risk clearly reported? | 87/95 (91.6) |
Reported risk quantified? | 51/87 (58.6) |
Nature of risk (absolute vs. relative) clearly stated? | 2/51 (4.2)* |
Duality of Interest | Â |
Was an expert consulted? | 13/95 (13.7) |
If an expert was used, was there disclosure of potential conflict of interest? | 0/13 (0) |
Citation of Sources | Â |
Was the review by Nissen et al. cited? | 70/95 (73.7) |
Could the Nissen review be found based on information provided in the news report? | 61/70 (87.1%) |
Were additional information resources provided to readers? | 12/95 (12.6) |
Use of trade vs. generic drug names | Â |
Were both generic and trade names used in the report? | 95/95 (100) |
Was reference made to the class of medication (TZD)? | 29/95 (30.5) |