Media Doctor Hong Kong
  

Media

 

+

 

Doctor

 

Hong Kong

rating information

Health and medical stories are identified from a pool of established media outlets that are largely based in Hong Kong.

Media Doctor Hong Kong reviews two types of health and medical news stories. These stories will generally be reports on:

  • Treatments, Tests, Devices or Drugs (TTDD); and
  • Public Health Events (PHE)

To be eligible for review, a story should:

  • Be relevant to the source country or region
  • Make explicit or implicit claims about a TTDD or PHE
  • Discuss a TTDD that is intended for use on humans; or discuss a PHE relevant to the community.

Who reviews the medical news?

A panel of academics and clinicians, based in Hong Kong and who have an interest in promoting excellence in health and medical news reporting, assesses the quality of medical news stories using a standardized rating instrument. Ratings and critiques of stories are published on this website.

What do the stars mean?

A news story receives a rating based on how well it covers the 10 criteria of Media Doctor Hong Kong's standardized rating system. The stars correspond to the score the story receives.

rating instrument

Category: Public Health Events (PHE)

Rating Criteria Satisfactory Not Satisfactory
Novelty of Public Health Event Accurate information on whether the risk is genuinely new, or if the level of risk is different from what has previously been known. Does not mention (or inaccurately represents) whether public health event is genuinely new.
Sources of Information Spokespersons are clearly identified, as well as their potential conflicts of interest.



Ideally, story is corroborated with independent sources (other spokespersons or experts or evidence).		 Spokespersons not clearly identified;



Or no mention of potential conflicts of interest;



Or no attempt at independent corroboration (relying only on single source or group).
Background Facts Useful, understandable general medical science information to remind or help readers with the basic science. No mention of (or confusing) general medical science information.
Headline Accurately summarizes the story content without sensationalizing. Sensationalizes and over-hypes the story content;



Or headline has little bearing on story content.
Applicability Mentions who benefits.



Ideally, provides accurate information on who best benefits.		 Unclear who best benefits from the public health announcement.
Quality of Evidence Clear distinction of opinions and/or facts.



Where relevant, there is mention of the origin/basis of the medical news story (i.e. preferably published studies or credible preliminary data from government, hospitals or universities).



Ideally, there is mention of study design, level of evidence, and correct interpretation in relation to the current best evidence available.		 No clear distinction of opinions and/or facts.



No mention or inaccurate reporting of the origin/basis of the medical news story.



No mention of study design and nature of clinical evidence.



Mention of nature of clinical evidence, but interpretation or discussion is inappropriate or incomplete.



No mention of current best evidence.
Communication of Risk (Description of Harms) Does not exaggerate or hype the level of risk;



Or alternatively does not downplay or minimize level of risk by avoiding using words such as "unlikely, low level, etc."		 Exaggerates or hypes the level of risk;



Or alternatively attempts to downplay or minimize level of risk by using words such as "unlikely, low level, etc."
Types of Outcomes (Symptoms) Mentions potential symptoms and possible harms. Does not mention symptoms and possible harms.
Probable Prevalence or Incidence Mentions prevalence or incidence. No mention of prevalence or incidence.
Disease Mongering No obvious elements of disease mongering (or fear mongering). Frames risk factors (e.g. high cholesterol) as a disease;



Or fails to mention or misrepresents natural history of disease;



Or exaggerates prevalence or incidence;



Or medicalizes a normal human variation.


Category: Treatments, Tests, Devices or Drugs (TTDD)

Rating Criteria Satisfactory Not Satisfactory
Novelty of Treatment, Test, Device or Drug Accurate information on novelty (or lack of).



Ideally, establishes what's new about the current approach compared with existing alternatives.		 Does not mention (or inaccurately represents) whether treatment, test, device or drug is genuinely new or just a new twist on an older idea.
Sources of Information Spokespersons are clearly identified, as well as their potential conflicts of interest.



Ideally, story is corroborated with independent sources (other spokespersons or experts or evidence).		 Spokespersons not clearly identified;



Or no mention of potential conflicts of interest;



Or no attempt at independent corroboration (relying only on single source or solitary research team).
Background Facts Useful, understandable general medical science information to remind or help readers with the basic science. No mention of (or confusing) general medical science information.
Headline Accurately summarizes the story content without sensationalizing. Sensationalizes and over-hypes the story content;



Or headline has little bearing on story content.
Applicability Mentions who benefits.



Ideally, provides accurate information on who best benefits.		 Unclear who best benefits from the treatment, test, device or drug.
Quality of Evidence Clear distinction of opinions and/or facts.



Where relevant, there is mention of the origin/basis of the medical news story from published studies (preferably in peer-reviewed journals) or unpublished preliminary information.



Ideally, there is mention of study design, level of evidence, and correct interpretation in relation to the current best evidence available.		 No clear distinction of opinions and/or facts.



No mention or inaccurate reporting of the origin/basis of the medical news story.



No mention of study design and nature of clinical evidence.



Mention of nature of clinical evidence, but interpretation or discussion is inappropriate or incomplete.



No mention of current best evidence.
Quantifying Treatment Benefits Where relevant, estimate as both absolute and relative risks, or absolute risk only (i.e. absolute risk for prospective and intervention studies);



Or mentions rates with and without treatment (Number Needed to Treat).		 No quantitative estimate of benefit;



Or quantitative estimate as relative risk only.
Treatment Harms Mentions harms or potential adverse effects.



Ideally, provides balanced information about harms (frequency and seriousness).		 No mention or unbalanced information about harms or potential adverse effects;



Or discounts or minimizes potential harms.
Treatment Costs and Options Mentions cost or alternative options.



Ideally, mentions comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, and alternatives with advantages/disadvantages of current options.		 No mention of costs, or costs downplayed (note: providing Reviewer believes cost is relatively important to mention).



No mention of alternative options.
Disease Mongering No obvious elements of disease mongering (or fear mongering). Frames risk factors (e.g. high cholesterol) as a disease;



Or fails to mention or misrepresents natural history of disease;



Or exaggerates prevalence or incidence;



Or medicalizes a normal human variation.


Copyright © Media Doctor Hong Kong