ArticlePloS one2019
Physician characteristics associated with proper assessment of overstated conclusions in research abstracts: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increasing Use of Promotional Language in Orthopaedic Surgery Abstracts-An Analysis of 112,916 Abstracts 1985 to 2020.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Promotional Language (Hype) in Abstracts of Publications of National Institutes of Health-Funded Research, 1985-2020.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Impact of hype on clinicians' evaluation of trials - a pilot study.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2023Article
- Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in Abstracts of Successful National Institutes of Health Grant Applications, 1985-2020.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLittle is known about the physician characteristics associated with appraisal skills of research evidence, especially the assessment of the validity of study methodology. This study aims to explore physician characteristics associated with proper assessment of overstated conclusions in research abstracts.
designA secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND
participantsWe recruited 567 volunteers from the Japan Primary Care Association.
methodsParticipants were randomly assigned to read the abstract of a research paper, with or without an overstatement, and to rate its validity. Our primary outcome was proper assessment of the validity of its conclusions. We investigated the association of physician characteristics and proper assessment using logistic regression models and evaluated the interaction between the associated characteristics and overstatement.
resultsWe found significant associations between proper assessment and post-graduate year (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.91, for every 10-year increase) and research experience as a primary investigator (PI; OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.65 to 5.34). Post-graduate year and PI had significant interaction with overstatement (P = 0.015 and < 0.001, respectively). Among participants who read abstracts without an overstatement, post-graduate year was not associated with proper assessment (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.33), and PI experience was associated with lower scores of the validity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.96).
conclusionPhysicians who have been in practice longer should be trained in distinguishing overstatements in abstract conclusions. Physicians with research experience might be informed that they tend to rate the validity of research lower regardless of the presence or absence of overstatements.
trial registrationUMIN000026269.
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.