On Tuesday 10th March 2015 a Cochrane study was published entitled “Hormone therapy for preventing [HRT] cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women.”
Cochrane reviews are the gold standard of reviews. They are called systematic reviews, which are seen as Level I evidence in the world of academia. They are undertaken by worldwide collaborators who are free from commercial sponsorship and other conflicts of interest. It should be noted, however, that Cochrane researchers can only review the studies that are available and these have often been funded/supported by the pharmaceutical industry.
This review was reported very differently in the UK media:
The Daily Mail reported “Taking HRT in your 50s ‘cuts risk of premature death and heart disease’”. The BBC ran with “HRT linked to clots - and possibly stroke - study finds”. The Telegraph headline was “HRT could halve the risk of heart disease, Oxford University research suggests".
How can one simple language study be reported so differently? Let’s take a look...
