Science or spin? A descriptive analysis of how oncology trials are presented in three short form digital media...

The quality of video content published by oncology media outlets is poorly characterized. We analyzed short form videos discussing oncology trials to determine the methodological rigor of their reporting, whether content invoked shared decision-making principles, and the prevalence of relevant financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) among speakers.

Videos discussing oncology trials published by Oncology Live TV [OncLive TV], Targeted Oncology, and the Video Journal Oncology [VJ Oncology] between January and April 2024 were analyzed. Abstracted data included whether study characteristics, therapy characteristics, treatment recommendations, and shared decision-making principles were discussed. Speakers' general payment data from 2021 to 2023 were extracted from the U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Open Payments database.

A majority of the 97 identified videos did not mention inclusion criteria (72%), exclusion criteria (95%), study limitations (81%), study strengths (91%), standard of care (75%), cost (96%), or shared decision-making (91%). Nearly one in five (18%) made specific treatment recommendations, of which only 13% invoked shared decision-making principles. Over half (52%) had speakers who received general payments from an entity with a financial interest in the discussed therapy.

Digital coverage of oncology trials has gaps in the transparency, methodological rigor, and disclosure of FCOIs, and rarely includes shared decision-making principles-representing a missed opportunity for outlets to disseminate patient-centered, evidence-based information to their audiences. Clear standards for reporting trial and therapy characteristics and FCOI disclosures among oncology media outlets would promote responsible dissemination of emerging evidence and further their mission to promote evidence-based and patient-centered care.