: Why are some medical studies which have NOT yet been peer-reviewed being treated as if they were? With the all the attention that the COVID-19 pandemic is generating, I try and focus on what the science is telling us and

Vote Up Vote Down   0 Reactions

Login to give Reaction!

Why are some medical studies which have NOT yet been peer-reviewed being treated as if they were?
With the all the attention that the COVID-19 pandemic is generating, I try and focus on what the science is telling us and dismiss the other news as noise.

Recently, however, I came across the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy (CIDRAP) which appears to publish information citing research which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

As an example, this article, titled "Study highlights ease of spread of COVID-19 viruses", cites a non-peer-reviewed study when it says:

COVID-19 can be spread before it causes symptoms, when it produces symptoms like those of the common cold, and as many as 12 days after recovery according to a virologic analysis of nine infected patients published today on the preprint server medRxiv

Another study which was not peer-reviewed was cited by both The Inquisitr and The Hill.

In the first article they say:

infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm [...] claimed that “just breathing air” is likely the primary way that people contract the disease

(as a side note, Michael Osterholm is the director of CIDRAP - see above)

The second article says:

A study awaiting peer review [...] indicated that the COVID-19 virus could remain viable in the air "up to 3 hours post aerosolization,"

Without getting into the merits of these studies nor whether people who cite them are interpreting correctly the findings, the front page for the medRxiv.org server (the pre-print server used for medical research which has not yet been peer reviewed) states

Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Yet, it appears to me that this is exactly what's happening, i.e. news media are reporting these studies in such a way to likely be interpreted as facts by their audience. It is not enough to put disclaimers such as "not yet been peer reviewed" or "published on pre-print servers" because most people won't necessarily know what that means.

Am I missing something?

(0)

Login to post a comment!