Christian Robinson, Nick Cutfield, John Mottershead, Katrina Sharples, Rosalina Richards, Jason Kingan, Celina Ledgard, Anuja Liyanage, Jennifer McLean, Fouad Nahab, Fergus Stewart, Samuel Strachan, Kathryn Tucker, Zhiyuan Zhang

To evaluate New Zealand media articles on their coverage of key issues regarding health interventions and whether it is consistent with available evidence. A retrospective analysis was carried out of all articles published in five New Zealand media sources over a 6-week period between 15 October and 26 November 2014. Articles were included if their primary focus was on health interventions involving medications, devices or in-hospital procedures. Articles were assessed for coverage of key issues using previously validated 10-point criteria. A literature review was performed to compare content with scientific evidence. We identified 30 articles for review. Only 4 of 30 articles covered indications, benefits and risks, and of these, two were consistent with available evidence (7%, 95% CI 1%-22%). For articles that discussed at least one of indications, benefits or risks, and there was corresponding evidence available, there was a high level of consistency with the evidence (89%, 95% CI 77%-95%). The overall mean value of coverage from the 10-point criteria was 51% (95% CI 45%-58%). Single questions regarding the potential harm, costs associated with the intervention and the availability of alternative options were particularly poorly covered. They were rated as 'satisfactory' in 13%, 23% and 33% of the 30 articles respectively. New Zealand news articles covering medical treatments and interventions are largely consistent with available evidence but are incomplete. Vital information is being consistently missed, especially around the potential harms and costs of medical interventions.