ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014
SearCh for humourIstic and Extravagant acroNyms and Thoroughly Inappropriate names For Important Clinical trials (SCIENTIFIC): qualitative and quantitative systematic study.
Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. 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.
- Malignant Melanoma Misdiagnosis in the Diabetic Foot. What Can We Learn From the Published Literature?Journal of foot and ankle research · 2026Pooled it
- Do patients and the public understand and feel engaged and valued after reading outcome set study invitations? A UK qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Analyzing the Creation and Use of Abbreviations in Cardiology and Cardiac Imaging Society Guidelines.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- The term CAKUT has outlived its usefulness: the case for the prosecution.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2022Review
- Team approach to polypharmacy evaluation and reduction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2021Article
- Article
- Syndemics: A theory in search of data or data in search of a theory?Social science & medicine (1982) · 2018Article
- Comment on: Teaching metacognition in clinical decision-making using a novel mnemonic checklist: an exploratory study.Singapore medical journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the development of acronym use across five major medical specialties and to evaluate the technical and aesthetic quality of the acronyms.
designAcronyms obtained through a literature search of Pubmed.gov followed by a standardised assessment of acronym quality (BEAUTY and CHEATING criteria).
participantsRandomised controlled trials within psychiatry, rheumatology, pulmonary medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology published between 2000 and 2012.
main outcome measuresPrevalence proportion of acronyms and composite quality score for acronyms over time.
results14,965 publications were identified, of which 18.3% (n=2737) contained an acronym in the title. Acronym use was more common among cardiological studies than among the other four medical specialties (40% v 8-15% in 2012, P<0.001). Except for within cardiology, the prevalence of acronyms increased over time, with the average prevalence proportion among the remaining four specialties increasing from 4.0% to 12.4% from 2000 to 2012 (P<0.001). The median combined acronym quality score decreased significantly over the study period (P<0.001), from a median 9.25 in 2000 to 5.50 in 2012.
conclusionFrom 2000 to 2012 the prevalence of acronyms in trial reports increased, coinciding with a substantial decrease in the technical and aesthetic quality of the acronyms. Strict enforcement of current guidelines on acronym construction by journal editors is necessary to ensure the proper use of acronyms in the future.
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.