ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
A Call for More Rigor in Science and Health Communication.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Gendered interpretations of the causes of breast cancer: a structured review of migrant studies.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Insights from multidisciplinary rare disease visits: Findings from wrap-up documents and participant surveys in a national diagnostic study.Rare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- The Pursuit of Scientific Rigor and Definitional Clarity in Health Literacy Research.Health literacy research and practice · 2024Article
- Reflections on Dr. Rima Rudd's Significance to Health Literacy in the Shadow of Health Equity.Health literacy research and practice · 2024Article
- Field based research in the era of the pandemic in resource limited settings: challenges and lessons for the future.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful dissemination of scientific knowledge relies on the ability of the writer, speaker, and designer to provide information and data that is both available and accessible to the audience for whom it is intended. Scientific rigor, uniformly applied to the development of medicines, products, and devices must be applied, as well, to communications-spoken, written, posted, or displayed. Rigorous development and design protocols call for formative research data gathering, careful pilot testing with members of the intended audience, needed revisions, and rigorous assessments. Guidelines and tools developed for health literacy applications can be adopted and adapted for environmental health research and educational efforts in the design of questionnaires, instructions, education and report back materials, as well as for public discourse.
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.