SynthesisBMJ open2017
Dissemination of 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial results: a systematic review of scholarly and media attention over 7 months.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore how the results from the 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial were disseminated to the scientific community and online media.
designA a systematic review of scholarly and public attention surrounding the DAPT study. SETTINGS: Data were collected from the ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, PubMed Commons, EurekAlert, the DAPT study website (www.daptstudy.org) and the
participantsNo participants were involved in this study.
main outcome measureProportion of contents highlighting the increased risk of mortality and critical to the author's interpretation of the results.
resultsWe identified 425 items reported by seven sources; 164 (39%) disseminated the authors' interpretation via an electronic link or a reference, with no additional text. Among 81 items (19 %), the message favoured prolonged treatment and consequently overstated the article conclusions. Among 119 items (28 %), the text was uncertain about the benefit of prolonged treatment but was reported with no or inappropriate mention of increased risk of mortality. Only 34 items (8 %) were uncertain about the benefit of prolonged treatment and mentioned increased risk of mortality. In all, 27 items (6 %) did not favour prolonged treatment, and only 12 of these (3 %) clearly raised some concerns about the reporting of increased risk of death.
conclusionDissemination of the DAPT study results to the scientific community and on different media sources rarely criticised the interpretation of the study results.
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.