More threads by Retired


No Evidence for Most TV Medical Advice, Study Shows
Medscape Medical News
December 26, 2014

Patients should be skeptical about claims and recommendations made on mainstream television medical talk shows, according to a Canadian media study published online December 17 in the British Medical Journal.

In many cases, investigators found that specific details on the magnitude of benefit or harm and the cost and inconvenience of following recommendations were lacking, and evidence supporting them was contradictory or absent. Viewers had little basis for informed decision making.

The prospective observational study, led by Christina Korownyk, MD, associate professor, family medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, randomly recorded 40 episodes each of the widely watched programs The Dr. Oz Show and The Doctors from early January 2013 to early May 2013 and assessed all recommendations made on both shows.

These influential internationally syndicated shows, which in 2012 to 2013 each attracted 2 to 3 million daily viewers, typically featured a host or hosts and guests discussing one to five health topics per episode and making an average of 11 or 12 recommendations to consumers, some of which were stronger than others. On both shows, the visitors made a substantial proportion of health recommendations: 65% on Dr. Oz and 33% on The Doctors.

To critically assess the content of these shows, experienced evidence reviewers independently searched and then, as a team, evaluated the evidence for 80 pieces of advice, randomly selected from what they considered stronger recommendations.

The most frequent topic on both programs was general medical/public health advice ("Get vaccinated"; "Sneeze or cough into your sleeve to prevent the spread of germs"), followed by non-weight-loss dietary advice; for example, on immune-boosting diets. The combination of dietary and weight-loss advice represented 43.2% of the topics discussed on Dr. Oz and 16.8% of those on The Doctors.

On Dr. Oz, the recommendations were most often dietary (39.2%; eg, "Carb-load your plate at breakfast"), although the researchers reported no direct links to specific dietary products. On The Doctors, the most common advice involved consulting a healthcare provider (17.8%): "Go to your primary care doctor or talk to their nurse before going to the [emergency department] to help relieve the load in the [emergency department]." Potential conflicts of interest of hosts and guests were acknowledged only four times out of 924 recommendations.

On both shows, exercise took a definite back seat to diet, with dietary advice accounting for 39% of recommendations vs 5% for exercise on Dr. Oz and 10% versus 5% on The Doctors.

On either program, a specific benefit was mentioned for only about 40% of recommendations. Even less commonly mentioned were the magnitude of benefit (<20%), potential harms (<10%), costs (<15%), and potential conflicts of interest (<1%). "We did come across a couple that had evidence of harm associated with them, and we are compiling this data now," Dr Korownyk told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, the Alberta investigators found that 87 of the 160 recommendations assessed (54%; 95% confidence interval, 47% - 62%) had some level of published evidence to support them. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of recommendations from The Dr. Oz Show, and 53% on The Doctors.

Conversely, believable or somewhat believable evidence was found against 11% (Oz) and 13% (Doctors) of the recommendations. For slightly more than 1 in 3 (Oz) and 1 in 4 (Doctors) recommendations, no evidence was found. "Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence," the authors write.

Among the limitations of the study, the authors acknowledge the shows' complexity, the subjective nature of much of the advice, and the difficulty of distinguishing between what was said and what was implied. They raised the question of whether medical talk shows should provide more than entertainment. "If the shows are perceived as providing medical information or advice, viewers need to realize that their recommendations may not be supported by higher evidence or presented with enough balanced information to adequately inform decision making."

The study was partly supported by a research scholarship through the University of Alberta. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

BMJ. 2014;349:g7346. Abstract

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
This confirms what I've always believed about people like Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil.

These people are entertainers, not legitimate practitioners, and there should be a disclaimer on every one of their broadcasts warning people about that fact.


Account Closed
There was a TV show or some part of the daily news on CBC about Dr. Oz and his detox treatment - no evidence of any effect after they tested the blood of the "detoxed" group. Also, about the cosmetic companies - I never believed in expensive creams anyway, but they tested some Lancome cream that was no different from the cheap creams. The incredients are alsmost identical, something I always wondered about when reading the labels of creams and other cosmetc products - there is little to no difference.


I think most of those expensive products are nothing but a whole whack of chemicals loaded with heavy perfumes.

Using all natural, organic products are usually far more cost effective and far better for you.
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.