Dataset Information

All that glitters isn't gold: a survey on acknowledgment of limitations in biomedical studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acknowledgment of all serious limitations to research evidence is important for patient care and scientific progress. Formal research on how biomedical authors acknowledge limitations is scarce.

Objectives

To assess the extent to which limitations are acknowledged in biomedical publications explicitly, and implicitly by investigating the use of phrases that express uncertainty, so-called hedges; to assess the association between industry support and the extent of hedging.

Design

We analyzed reporting of limitations and use of hedges in 300 biomedical publications published in 30 high and medium -ranked journals in 2007. Hedges were assessed using linguistic software that assigned weights between 1 and 5 to each expression of uncertainty.

Results

Twenty-seven percent of publications (81/300) did not mention any limitations, while 73% acknowledged a median of 3 (range 1-8) limitations. Five percent mentioned a limitation in the abstract. After controlling for confounders, publications on industry-supported studies used significantly fewer hedges than publications not so supported (p = 0.028).

Limitations

Detection and classification of limitations was--to some extent--subjective. The weighting scheme used by the hedging detection software has subjective elements.

Conclusions

Reporting of limitations in biomedical publications is probably very incomplete. Transparent reporting of limitations may protect clinicians and guideline committees against overly confident beliefs and decisions and support scientific progress through better design, conduct or analysis of new studies.

SUBMITTER: Ter Riet G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3854521 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

All that glitters isn't gold: a survey on acknowledgment of limitations in biomedical studies.

Ter Riet Gerben G Chesley Paula P Gross Alan G AG Siebeling Lara L Muggensturm Patrick P Heller Nadine N Umbehr Martin M Vollenweider Daniela D Yu Tsung T Akl Elie A EA Brewster Lizzy L Dekkers Olaf M OM Mühlhauser Ingrid I Richter Bernd B Singh Sonal S Goodman Steven S Puhan Milo A MA

PloS one 20131120 11

<h4>Background</h4>Acknowledgment of all serious limitations to research evidence is important for patient care and scientific progress. Formal research on how biomedical authors acknowledge limitations is scarce.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the extent to which limitations are acknowledged in biomedical publications explicitly, and implicitly by investigating the use of phrases that express uncertainty, so-called hedges; to assess the association between industry support and the extent of hedgin ...[more]

PMID: 24324540

Similar Datasets

Project description:Epilepsy surgery is often the only effective treatment in appropriately selected patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, a disease affecting about 30% of those with epilepsy. We review the evidence supporting the use of epilepsy surgery, with a focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Second, we identify gaps in knowledge about the benefits of epilepsy surgery for certain populations, the challenges of individualizing the choice of surgery, and our lack of understanding of the mechanisms of surgical outcomes. We conducted a search (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov) on March 2, 2016, to identify epilepsy surgery RCTs, systematic reviews, or health technology assessments (HTAs). Abstracts were screened to identify resective, palliative (e.g., corpus callosotomy, multiple subpial transection [MST]), ablative (e.g., Laser interstitial thermal therapy [LITT], gamma knife radiosurgery [RS]), and neuromodulation (e.g., cerebellar stimulation [CS], hippocampal stimulation [HS], repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], responsive neurostimulation [RNS], thalamic stimulation [TS], trigeminal nerve stimulation [TNS], and vagal nerve stimulation [VNS]) RCTs. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Knowledge gaps were identified. Of 1,205 abstracts, 20 RCTs were identified (resective surgery including corpus callosotomy [n = 7], MST [n = 0], RS [n = 1, 3 papers], LITT [n = 0], CS [n = 1], HS [n = 2], RNS [n = 1], rTMS [n = 1], TNS [n = 1], TS [n = 1], and VNS [n = 5]). Most studies targeted patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) and none examined the effectiveness of resective surgical therapies in patients with extra-TLE (ETLE) or with specific lesions aside from mesial temporal lobe sclerosis. No pediatric surgical RCTs were identified except for VNS. Few RCTs address the effectiveness of surgery in epilepsy and most are of limited generalizability. Future studies are needed to compare the effectiveness of different surgical strategies, better understand the mechanisms of surgical outcomes, and define the ideal surgical approaches, particularly for patients with high or very low cognitive function, normal imaging, or ETLE.

Dataset Information

All that glitters isn't gold: a survey on acknowledgment of limitations in biomedical studies.

Background

Objectives

Design

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Publications

All that glitters isn't gold: a survey on acknowledgment of limitations in biomedical studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets