Impact of hype on clinicians' evaluation of trials - a pilot study.

Neil Millar, Brian Budgell

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Neil MillarFaculty of Engineering, Information and Systems, University of Tsukuba.

Brian BudgellCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the practicality of using a teleconferencing platform to assess the effect of hype on clinicians' evaluations of reports of clinical trials in spinal care. Methods: Twelve chiropractic clinicians were interviewed via a videoconferencing application. Interviews were recorded and timed. Participant behaviour was monitored for compliance with the protocol. Differences between participants numerical ratings of hyped and non-hyped abstracts based on four measures of quality were analysed using pairwise comparisons (Wilcoxon signed rank test for independent samples). In addition, a linear mixed effects model was fitted with condition (i.e. hype vs. no hype) as a fixed effect and participant and abstract as random effects. Results: The interviews and data analysis were conducted without significant technical difficulty. Participant compliance was high, and no harms were reported. There were no statistically significant differences in the quality rankings of hyped versus non-hyped abstracts. Conclusion: The use of a videoconferencing platform to measure the effects of hype on clinicians' evaluations of abstracts of clinical trials is practical and an adequately powered study is justified. Lack of statistically significant results may well be due to low participant numbers.

Indexed as

chiropractichypemedical writingpilot studyspinal carevideoconferencing

Identifiers

PMID37250465

PMCPMC10211403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.