ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging gaps between scientific research and regulatory decision-making in Europe: roles of academia, risk assessors, and policymakers.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Dietary and complementary oral supplements for the management of chronic diseases in children: a systematic review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Medical Article Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
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
Background: As the number of limitations increases in a medical research article, their consequences multiply and the validity of findings decreases. How often do limitations occur in a medical article? What are the implications of limitation interaction? How often are the conclusions hedged in their explanation? Objective: To identify the number, type, and frequency of limitations and words used to describe conclusion(s) in medical research articles. Methods: Search, analysis, and evaluation of open access research articles from 2021 and 2022 from the Results: A total of 298 articles were reviewed and analyzed, finding 1,764 limitations. Four articles had no limitations. The average was between 3.7% and 6.9% per article. Hedging, weasel words and words of estimative probability description was found in 95.6% of the conclusions. Conclusions: Limitations and their number matter. The greater the number of limitations and ramifications of their effects, the more outcomes and conclusions are affected. Wording ambiguity using hedging or weasel words shows that limitations affect the uncertainty of claims. The limitation index scoring method shows the diminished validity of finding(s) and conclusion(s).
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.