Progress or PR? How to Report Clinical Trials

"[S]cience journalists need to be able to identify a well-performed trial from a shoddy one, and know when results are genuinely significant. And as international pharmaceutical companies increasingly carry out clinical trials in developing countries, with the dangers of exploitation that this can bring, reporting on the way they are conducted is ever more important."

This resource guides science journalists in making strategic decisions when it comes to reporting on clinical trials. The first step is to check the basics, asking: Is the product relevant enough to your audience to make a good story? Is the story really newsworthy? ("If a treatment has passed only phase I trials, it may be too early to shout about.") It is suggested that journalists make sure the trial is registered with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, set up in response to concern about poor transparency in clinical trials. This specifies 20 minimum facts that should be provided. Many countries are maintaining their own national registries, too, though in, general, trials are registered internationally first.

Next, it is important to consider how the research results are being presented. Has this presentation been influenced by the sponsors of the trial? "Remember that preliminary trial results presented at a conference will probably not have been peer-reviewed. If this is the case, mention it in your story and explain the implications." There are challenges posted by "risky statistics": "If you are suspicious about a paper, first try to find the raw data through the clinical trials registry. Next, ask an independent expert in the field to analyse the raw data and the publication." If a trial doesn't come up to standard, a science journalist may want to dig deeper in order to perhaps uncover an injustice. For instance, as reported here, developing countries are increasingly attracting multinational firms wanting to carry out clinical trials. A journalist might want to ask critical questions of researchers and, if possible, trial participants: Is that because regulations governing such trials are weaker, or perhaps because it is far cheaper and often far easier to recruit participants from largely illiterate or semi-literate populations? And might those participants not ask as many uncomfortable questions as their Western counterparts? "The issue of 'informed consent' - that is, a signed agreement to participate voluntarily in a trial after being fully and accurately briefed about its risks and benefits - is a murky one in developing countries."

In conclusion: "Rigorous reporting can weed out weaker trials so you cover only the best and most relevant. And you can publicise trials that are run badly and sometimes illegally. But remember, fair and transparent trials often do result in a genuinely beneficial vaccine or drug, in both developed and developing countries."