Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on July 20, 2018, 08:03:15 PM

Oh my god, yes. This annoys me so much.

My field is medicine. An important study came out a few days ago that shows that adrenaline, which is used as part of advanced life support algorithms, resulted in a significantly higher survival rate but no significant difference in the rate of favourable neurological outcome. This has been reported with the following headlines, neither of which are true:

These headlines are completely designed to bring in clicks and views at the expense of accuracy.

I think the worst part about how those stories are presented is the use of their quotes once you start reading the stories.

Quote

Make no mistake, the results of this landmark trial will change the way people are treated if, unfortunately, their heart should stop, said David Nunan, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, who was not involved in the study. Until now, everyone whos been eligible to receive adrenaline would have been given it without question. That can no longer be the case.

This quote pulled from the story that failed at math in the headline.

Not being medically trained myself, I would be inclined to dig deeper, but would start on google if I was unlucky enough to read the story that didn't link to the original article in the story as only 1 did.

If I had been lucky here's what I would have found... a basic conclusion written up based on the results (IMO showing the need for further testing for possible indicators for favorable/unfavorable outcomes). If I remember correctly that's how I was taught to do experiments/research in grade 4 or something for the good old science fair.

Just for kicks I did take a chance on google, like I would without a link to the source, and didn't get inundated by garbage yet this article was actually a well balanced interpretation IMO. It may be to recent but as soon as someone with an opinion will begin the spread, and there will be a rabbit hole of misinformaion to fall into.