Dataset Information

Hyperlink-Embedded Journal Articles Improve Statistical Knowledge and Reader Satisfaction.

ABSTRACT: To practice evidence-based medicine, physicians should have a solid understanding of fundamental epidemiological and biostatistical concepts. Research suggests that only a minority of physicians have such an understanding of biostatistics.To collect pilot data on a novel biostatistical educational tool, a hyperlink-embedded journal article, which is aimed at improving knowledge in biostatistics.Forty-four physicians-in-training participated in this pilot study. Participants completed a pretest consisting of 5 questions about biostatistical terms that would be encountered in the article. They were randomized to either an unmodified journal article or to the same article with hyperlinked biostatistical terms. All participants then completed a posttest that was identical to the pretest.Having access to hyperlinked information had a positive association with the number of improved test answers (P = .05). Use of hyperlinks varied, and were seemingly dependent on user comfort with terms; well-understood definitions ("average") were clicked on a few times (5.5% of participants), whereas more obscure method terms ("Lexis diagram") were clicked on by 94% of participants. While only 42% of participants stated they would have looked up definitions of the biostatistical terms if they had not been provided in the hyperlinked article, 94% of participants identified the hyperlink tool as something they would use if readily available to them when reading journal articles.Results of this pilot study of a novel educational intervention suggest that embedded hyperlinks within journal articles may be a useful tool to teach biostatistical terms to physicians.

SUBMITTER: Saxon D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4675424 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hyperlink-Embedded Journal Articles Improve Statistical Knowledge and Reader Satisfaction.

Saxon David D Pearson Alexander T AT Wu Peter P

Journal of graduate medical education 20151201 4

<h4>Background</h4>To practice evidence-based medicine, physicians should have a solid understanding of fundamental epidemiological and biostatistical concepts. Research suggests that only a minority of physicians have such an understanding of biostatistics.<h4>Objective</h4>To collect pilot data on a novel biostatistical educational tool, a hyperlink-embedded journal article, which is aimed at improving knowledge in biostatistics.<h4>Methods</h4>Forty-four physicians-in-training participated in ...[more]

PMID: 26692981

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.Methodology and principal findingsInterventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with "no statistical expert" and "no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2x2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6-24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: -0.3-+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.Conclusions and significanceThis prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

Project description:ImportanceWomen are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021.ExposuresPrimary and senior authors' genders.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of citations per article.ResultsAmong 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.

Project description:Importance:Citation analysis is a bibliometric method that uses citation rates to evaluate research performance. This type of analysis can identify the articles that have shaped the modern history of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN). Objectives:To identify and characterize top-cited OBGYN articles in the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science's Science Citation Index Expanded and to compare top-cited OBGYN articles published in specialty OBGYN journals with those published in nonspecialty journals. Design, Setting, and Participants:Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of top-cited articles that were indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded from 1980 to 2018. The Science Citation Index Expanded was queried using search terms from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's 2018 certifying examination topics list. The top 100 articles from all journals and the top 100 articles from OBGYN journals were evaluated for specific characteristics. Data were analyzed in March 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The articles were characterized by citation number, publication year, topic, study design, and authorship. After excluding articles that featured on both lists, top-cited articles were compared. Results:The query identified 3?767?874 articles, of which 278?846 (7.4%) were published in OBGYN journals. The top-cited article was published by Rossouw and colleagues in JAMA (2002). Top-cited articles published in nonspecialty journals were more frequently cited than those in OBGYN journals (median [interquartile range], 1738 [1490-2077] citations vs 666 [580-843] citations, respectively; P?<?.001) and were more likely to be randomized trials (25.0% vs 2.2%, respectively; difference, 22.8%; 95% CI, 13.5%-32.2%; P?<?.001). Whereas articles from nonspecialty journals focused on broad topics like osteoporosis, articles from OBGYN journal focused on topics like preeclampsia and endometriosis. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found substantial differences between top-cited OBGYN articles published in nonspecialty vs OBGYN journals. These differences may reflect the different goals of the journals, which work together to ensure optimal dissemination of impactful articles.

Dataset Information

Hyperlink-Embedded Journal Articles Improve Statistical Knowledge and Reader Satisfaction.

Publications

Hyperlink-Embedded Journal Articles Improve Statistical Knowledge and Reader Satisfaction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets