ArticleBMC medical research methodology2003
Does anybody read "evidence-based" articles?
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine: guidelines for producers, reviewers and consumers.Regional anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Guideline
- From Agriculture to Clinics: Unlocking the Potential of Magnetized Water for Planetary and Human Health.Cureus · 2024Review
- Health in the Skies: A Narrative Review of the Issues Faced by Commercial Airline Pilots.Cureus · 2023Review
- Invited commentary-WHO Classification of Tumours: How should tumors be classified? Expert consensus, systematic reviews or both?International journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Narrative reviews from a fraudulent author: reasons to retract.Intensive care medicine · 2019Article
- Systematic review of content and quality of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis review articles.ERJ open research · 2018Article
- Evidence levels for neuroradiology articles: low agreement among raters.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2015Article
- Systematic analysis of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) reviews: proliferation of low-quality reviews overwhelms the results of well-performed meta-analyses.Intensive care medicine · 2012Review
- The wisdom of Archimedes.Archives of disease in childhood · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe electronic version of the British Medical Journal (eBMJ) has a unique feature in that it provides an electronic record of the number of times an article has been viewed ("hits") in the week after its publication. We sought to compare the relative popularity of primary research and "evidence-based" papers against that of narrative reviews and editorials. We surveyed four broad groupings of articles in 2001: Editorials, Clinical Reviews (which are narrative reviews), Education and Debate, and Papers (which are original research articles and systematic reviews). Clinical Reviews were the most frequently viewed articles, with an average of 4148 hits per article, while Papers were less popular (average of 1168 hits per article). Systematic reviews (23 articles, average of 1190 hits per article) were visited far less often than narrative reviews. Editorials (average of 2537 hits per article) were viewed much more frequently than Papers, even where the editorial was written as an accompanying piece with a direct link to the paper. DISCUSSION: Narrative reviews and editorials are accessed more frequently than primary research papers or systematic reviews in the first week after their publication. These findings may disappoint those who believe that it is important for readers to critically appraise the primary research data. Although the technical quality of journal articles may have been helped by recommendations on structured reporting, the readability of such articles has received little attention. Authors and journal editors must take steps to make research articles and systematic reviews more attractive to readers. This may involve using simpler language, as well as innovative use of web resources to produce shorter, snappier papers, with the methodological or technical details made available elsewhere.
conclusionPrimary research and "evidence-based" papers seem to be less attractive to readers than narrative reviews and editorials in the first week after publication. Authors and editors should try to improve the early appeal of primary research papers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.