Dataset Information

Trends in the Use of Common Words and Patient-Centric Language in the Titles of Medical Journals, 1976-2015.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The language of medical research appears to be intrinsically tied to the culture of medical research and provides a unique window into broader trends in the culture of medicine.

Objective

To analyze medical language from 5 premier medical journals and investigate broader changes in the culture of clinical investigation during the last 40 years.

Design, setting, and participants

In this qualitative study using a data-driven analysis, 302 293 PubMed records were extracted from JAMA, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, the BMJ, and New England Journal of Medicine from January 1, 1976, through December 31, 2015, to identify key trends in medical language. A frequency analysis was applied across the 40-year time frame in JAMA to assess the major trends in all publication types. Patient-centered language was analyzed in clinical trials in the flanking time periods (1976-1980 and 2011-2015) across the 5 journals. Data were analyzed from November 16, 2016, through November 9, 2018.

Main outcomes and measures

Increasing or decreasing frequency of words (monograms) and word pairs (bigrams) and the proportion of patient-centric words in journal article titles.

Results

In JAMA, 50?277 articles of all publication types were included. In the frequency analysis, the most increased terms were reflective of the language of epidemiological research. The bigram analysis revealed a decline in causal language (-2.42/100 000 words to -2.03/100?000 words; false discovery rate [FDR], <0.01) and an increased description of patients in the plural form (6.92/100 000 words to 11.4/100?000 words; FDR, <0.01). A trend to separate patient from disease was observed; for example, there was a decrease in describing a patient as a diabetic (-2.21/100?000 words; FDR, <0.01) compared with a patient with diabetes. In the analysis of clinical trials in all 5 journals, 3125 titles were identified (range, 193-932 per journal). In 4 of the 5 journals, use of patient-centric keywords increased significantly (absolute increase, 18.9%-34.3%; P?Conclusions and relevanceTrends in medical language reflect the rise of evidence-based medicine, a shift in focus from individuals to populations, and a separation of patient and disease. Data-driven analysis of medical language provides a unique window into the changing landscape of medical culture.

SUBMITTER: Chen GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583309 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOver the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and methodsThis was a methodological study. We aimed the most visible Portuguese medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search (through PUBMED). We included systematic reviews published up to August 2020. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.ResultsSixty-six systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n = 53; 80.3%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Up to 2010 there was a steady increase in the number of systematic reviews published, followed by a period of great variability of publication, ranging from 1 to 10 in a given year. According to the systematic reviews' typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness/efficacy of health interventions (n = 27; 40.9%). General and Internal Medicine (n = 20; 30.3%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n = 46; 69.7%) were rated as being of "critically low-quality".ConclusionsThere were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results. Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.