Dataset Information

Erratum regarding missing Declaration of Competing Interest statements in previously published articles.

ABSTRACT: [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100802.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100904.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100850.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.04.019.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100813.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.02.016.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.100677.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2019.12.021.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100786.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.05.017.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100749.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.04.017.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100784.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100727.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100737.].

SUBMITTER:

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10250821 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan-Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Erratum regarding missing Declaration of Competing Interest statements in previously published articles.

Clinical epidemiology and global health 20220101

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100802.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100904.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100850.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.04.019.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100813.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.02.016.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.100677.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2019.12.021.][This corrects the a ...[more]

PMID: 37309427

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate how different competing interest (COI) statements affect clinical readers' perceptions of education articles.DesignRandomised controlled trial.Setting and participantsRandom sample of UK doctors.InterventionsWe created four permutations of each of two clinical reviews (on gout or dyspepsia), which varied only in terms of the COI statement. Volunteers were blinded and randomised to receive one review and asked to complete a questionnaire after reading it. Blinded factorial analyses of variance and analyses of covariance were carried out to assess the influence of each review and type of COI on outcomes.Primary and secondary outcomesConfidence in the article's conclusions (primary outcome), its importance, their level of interest in the article and their likelihood to change practice after reading it.ResultsOf 10 889 doctors invited to participate, 1065 (10%) volunteered. Of these, 749 (70%) completed the survey. Analysis of covariance (adjusting for age, sex, job type, years since qualification) showed no significant difference between the groups in participants' confidence in the article (gout: p=0.32, dyspepsia: p=0.78) or their rating of its importance (gout: p=0.09, dyspepsia: p=0.79). For the gout review, participants rated articles with advisory board and consultancies COI as significantly less interesting than those with no COI (p=0.028 with Bonferroni correction). Among participants indicating that they treat the condition and that the article's recommendations differed from their own practice, there was no significant difference in likelihood to change practice between groups (gout: p=0.59, n=59; dyspepsia: p=0.56, n=80).ConclusionsDoctors' confidence in educational articles was not influenced by the COI statements. Further work is required to determine if doctors do not perceive these COIs as important in educational articles or if they do not pay attention to these statements. More meaningful COI disclosure practices may be needed, which highlight context-specific potential sources of bias to readers.Trial registration numberNCT02548312; Results.

Project description:PurposeTo identify and evaluate the top 50 most-cited articles pertaining to SLAP tears.MethodsThe ISI Web of Knowledge database was used to conduct a query for articles pertaining to SLAP tears. Our query was conducted in April 2020 with multiple Boolean operative combinations performed by 2 independent reviewers. Articles on the final list were further reviewed to extract the following data: manuscript title, first author, total citation count, year of publication, citation density since publication, current citation rate since 2013, journal, country of origin, and level of evidence.ResultsOur initial search yielded 2,597 articles. Within this cohort, the top 50 publications pertaining to SLAP tears were identified that met our search criteria. The top article was cited 802 times while the 50th ranked article was cited 46 times. The average number of citations per publication was 131, whereas the average citation density since year of publication was 7.3. No strong correlations were found between citation density and year published. Twelve journals published articles pertaining to SLAP tears, with Arthroscopy accounting for the greatest number (15 articles, 30%). Most articles were graded with a level of evidence (LOE) of IV (n = 24, 48%), followed by review articles without LOE (n = 8, 16%). Only 2 articles achieved an LOE of I (4%). Articles typically addressed the arthroscopic management (n = 11, 22%), whereas anatomy/classification (n =10, 20%), and outcomes (n = 9, 18%) also were reported.ConclusionsThis review provides a quantitative analysis of the most-referenced literature pertaining to SLAP tears. This body of knowledge helps surgeons search for literature regarding these injuries and identify trends regarding SLAP tear research.Clinical relevanceThis research provides practitioners with an easily accessible and comprehensive collection of the major contributions regarding SLAP tears and offers insight into future areas for research.

Dataset Information

Erratum regarding missing Declaration of Competing Interest statements in previously published articles.

Publications

Erratum regarding missing Declaration of Competing Interest statements in previously published articles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets