BMJ open quality · 2025
COVID-19 advocacy bias in the BMJ: meta-research evaluation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kepp Kasper P, Cristea Ioana, Muka Taulant, Ioannidis John P A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, BMJ, a leading 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 13 April 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 favouring aggressive measures (leaders of both indieSAGE and the Vaccines-Plus initiative) and four control groups: leading members of the governmental SAGE, UK-based key signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) (favouring more restricted measures), highly cited UK scientists and UK scientists who published the highest number of COVID-19-related papers across science (n=16 in each group).
RESULTS: 122 authors published >5 COVID-19-related items each in BMJ: 18 were leading members/signatories of aggressive measures advocacy groups publishing 231 COVID-19-related BMJ documents, 53 were editors, journalists or regular columnists 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 or regular columnists and only 3 were non-advocate scientists. Some aggressive measures advocates already had strong BMJ presence prepandemic. 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 had a strong bias in favour of authors advocating an aggressive approach to COVID-19 mitigation. Advocacy bias may influence public opinion and policy decisions and should be mitigated in future health crises in favour of open and balanced debate of different policy options.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Scopus was searched for items published until 13 April 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 favouring aggressive measures (leaders of both indieSAGE and the Vaccines-Plus initiative) and four control groups: leading members of the governmental SAGE, UK-based key signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) (favouring more restricted measures), highly cited UK scientists and UK scientists who published the highest number of COVID-19-related papers across science (n=16 in each group).
RESULTS: 122 authors published >5 COVID-19-related items each in BMJ: 18 were leading members/signatories of aggressive measures advocacy groups publishing 231 COVID-19-related BMJ documents, 53 were editors, journalists or regular columnists 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 or regular columnists and only 3 were non-advocate scientists. Some aggressive measures advocates already had strong BMJ presence prepandemic. 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 had a strong bias in favour of authors advocating an aggressive approach to COVID-19 mitigation. Advocacy bias may influence public opinion and policy decisions and should be mitigated in future health crises in favour of open and balanced debate of different policy options.