Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39513070›Full record

ArticleJMA journal2024

Embracing Letters to the Editor: Classifying Types of Letters into Disagreement, Agreement, and Complementary.

Shigeki Matsubara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMA journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

1 author.

Shigeki MatsubaraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Letters to the Editor" that address original articles significantly contribute to medical literature. Utilizing letters published in obstetrics and gynecology journals as a study model, I aimed to classify letters according to their context, providing a valuable framework for readers to comprehend the significance of letters and for authors to effectively write them. Using a sample of 40 recent letters from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research (JOGR), I classified letters into three main categories based on their attitude to addressed articles: Disagreement, Agreement, and Complementary. I further subclassified each category into subcategories, including "Interpretation claim," "Data addition," and "Historical viewpoint." The same procedure was carried out for the 24 most recent letters from BJOG and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and also for the JMA Journal. Disagreement letters were prevalent in all three OBGYN journals, accounting for 1/2 to 2/3 of all letters. The rest letters were categorized either as "Agreement" or "Complimentary." Subcategorizations demonstrated different ratios of letters of the three categories among journals. I believe that the attempt to categorize and subcategorize letters offers valuable insights into the letters, potentially enhancing clarity in medical literature communication.

Indexed as

categorizationclassificationcorrespondencelettermanuscript

Identifiers

PMID39513070
PMCPMC11543308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.