Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22360847›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2012

Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency.

Milo A Puhan, Elie A Akl, Dianne Bryant, Feng Xie, Giovanni Apolone, Gerben ter Riet

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Development, explanation, and presentation of the Physical Literacy Interventions Reporting Template (PLIRT).The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Limited by our limitations.Perspectives on medical education · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Milo A PuhanDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Mail room E6153, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. mpuhan@jhsph.edu
Elie A Akl
Dianne Bryant
Feng Xie
Giovanni Apolone
Gerben ter Riet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the risk of being unable to publish their work. Currently, too few papers in the medical literature frankly discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations. The goals of this commentary are to review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the medical literature, to discuss the implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists submitting their papers to journals. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty) and who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers. We strongly encourage authors to report on all potentially important limitations that may have affected the quality and interpretation of the evidence being presented. This will not only benefit science but also offers incentives for authors: If not all important limitations are acknowledged readers and reviewers of scientific articles may perceive that the authors were unaware of them. Authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers. Articles discussing limitations help shape the future research agenda and are likely to be cited because they have informed the design and conduct of future studies. Instead of perceiving acknowledgment of limitations negatively, authors, reviewers and editors should recognize the potential of a frank and unbiased discussion of study limitations that should not jeopardize acceptance of manuscripts.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHumansNeeds AssessmentPublishingQuality ControlResearch ReportUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22360847
PMCPMC3305390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.