Key result
News reports republished over half of press release content, but 94% of general and 80% of science news sites omitted that the study was not peer-reviewed, and universally omitted other key details.
Why the study?
How scientific studies on electronic cigarettes are reported can significantly influence perceptions of adults who smoke who might consider alternative products.
Observational (n=1,280)
The accuracy of news reporting on scientific studies heavily depends on press releases, as news outlets frequently omit critical study limitations and nuances if they are not explicitly included in the press release.
Reporting of EC studies may shape smoker perceptions; leaves open whether non-peer-reviewed database analyses should inform practice.
Background: Cigarette smoking remains a leading cause of death and illness in the US and globally. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) were introduced as a potentially less harmful alternative and are now used by approximately 20 million American adults. How scientific studies on ECs are reported can significantly influence perceptions of adults who smoke who might consider alternative products.A 2024 non peer-reviewed study by Medstar Health researchers who analyzed data from the All of Us NIH database found a 19% increased risk of heart failure (HF) among ever-users of ECs. This finding was announced by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) in a press release, and was reported on by over 30 news organizations in the US and England. Methods: This analysis investigated the translation frequency of Medstar study-related data across four stages: the original database, the researchers' analysis, the press release issued, and subsequent news media coverage. Instances of material omissions, unsupported claims, and confirmation bias throughout the dissemination process were identified and discussed. Results: The analytic sample (n=1,280) represented coverage (or omission) of material scientific content items (n=40) present in the abstract, poster and/or press release by general news sites (n=17) and science news sites (n=15). News reports on average, republished over half of the content items present in the press release, with direct quotes repeated 75% of the time in general news sites and 68% of the time in science news sites. Strikingly, content present only in the study's abstract and/or poster, but absent from the press release, was omitted by all general news sites and the majority of science news sites. Critical omissions included that exclusive EC use was not associated with a significant increase in HF, and the impact of combusted cigarette (CC) smoking in dual-users was discounted as having a minimal association with HF. These details were absent in the press release, as well as in almost all subsequent news reports. 94% of general news sites and 80% of science news sites didn’t mention that the study had not yet been peer-reviewed. Conclusion / Implications: The accuracy and precision of news reporting on the Medstar study could have been substantially improved if the press release had been clearer about the contradictions and limitations of the study findings, and if news outlets had thoroughly examined and reported the complete study findings, including the abstract and underlying data, rather than primarily transmitting quotations from the press release. This points to areas for improvement in science reporting quality, which could benefit public health literacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gal Cohen (2025) conducted an observational in Media coverage of scientific research (n=1,280). News media reporting was evaluated on Translation frequency of study-related data. News reports republished over half of press release content, but 94% of general and 80% of science news sites omitted that the study was not peer-reviewed, and universally omitted other key details.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: