Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem:
http://conacyt.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/handle/1000/8920| COVID-19 advocacy bias in the BMJ: meta-research evaluation | |
| Kasper P. Kepp Ioana Alina Cristea Taulant Muka John Ioannidis | |
| Acceso Abierto | |
| Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas | |
| https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.12.24308823 | |
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.12.24308823v1 | |
| Objectives During the COVID-19 pandemic, BMJ, the premier journal on evidence-based medicine worldwide, published many views by advocates of specific COVID-19 policies. We aimed to evaluate the presence and potential bias of this advocacy. Design and Methods Scopus was searched for items published until April 13, 2024 on “COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2”. BMJ publication numbers and types before (2016−2019) and during (2020−2023) the pandemic were compared for a group of advocates favoring aggressive measures (leaders of both the Independent Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (indieSAGE) and the Vaccines-Plus initiative) and four control groups: leading members of the governmental Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), UK-based key signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) (favoring more restricted measures), highly-cited UK scientists, and UK scientists who published the highest number of COVID-19-related papers in the entire scientific literature (n=16 in each group). Results 122 authors published more than 5 COVID-19-related items each in BMJ. Of those, 18 were leading members/signatories of aggressive measures advocacy groups publishing 231 COVID-19 related BMJ documents, 53 were editors/journalists, and 51 scientists were not identified as associated with any advocacy. Of 41 authors with >10 publications in BMJ, 8 were scientists advocating for aggressive measures, 7 were editors, 23 were journalists, and only 3 were non-advocate scientists. Some aggressive measures advocates already had strong BMJ presence pre-pandemic. During pandemic years, the studied indieSAGE/Vaccines-Plus advocates outperformed in BMJ presence leading SAGE members by 16.0-fold, UK-based GBD advocates by 64.2-fold, the most-cited scientists by 16.0-fold, and the authors who published most COVID-19 papers overall by 10.7-fold. The difference was driven mainly by short opinion pieces and analyses. Conclusions BMJ appears to have favored and massively promoted specific COVID-19 advocacy views during the pandemic, thereby strongly biasing the scientific picture on COVID-19. | |
| bioRxiv | |
| 14-06-2024 | |
| Preimpreso | |
| Inglés | |
| Público en general | |
| VIRUS RESPIRATORIOS | |
| Aparece en las colecciones: | Materiales de Consulta y Comunicados Técnicos |
Cargar archivos:
| Fichero | Tamaño | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
| COVID-19 advocacy bias in the BMJ meta-research evaluation.pdf | 2.37 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizar/Abrir |