Dataset Information

The nomenclature of the basic disease elements of gout: A content analysis of contemporary medical journals.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:There is currently no standardised nomenclature for the basic disease elements of gout. This study aimed to identify these elements and examine how they are labelled in contemporary medical literature. METHODS:We analysed articles from the ten highest ranked general rheumatology journals, and five highest ranked general internal medicine journals (by Impact Factor, according to 2015 Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports), published between 1 January 2012 and 31 January 2017. For each journal, articles relevant to gout and hyperuricaemia were identified by the search terms 'gout' and/or 'urate' and/or 'uric acid' using MEDLINE. Basic disease elements were identified and their labels extracted. Labels designated 'unique' used different words or phrases to describe an element. RESULTS:A total of 549 articles were analysed. Eleven basic disease elements and 343 unique labels were identified. Labelling was imprecise for most elements. 'An episode of acute inflammation triggered by the presence of pathogenic crystals' was represented by a total of 162 unique labels; 33.6% of articles referring to this element used at least four unique labels. For articles referencing 'the circulating form of the final enzymatic product generated by xanthine oxidase in purine metabolism in humans', the labels 'uric acid' and 'urate' were used with similar frequency (63.0% and 62.5%, respectively), and both labels were used in 25.9% of articles. CONCLUSION:Labelling of the basic disease elements of gout is characterised by imprecision, inaccuracy and lack of clarity. Consensus regarding the nomenclature of these elements is required.

SUBMITTER: Bursill D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7372969 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The nomenclature of the basic disease elements of gout: A content analysis of contemporary medical journals.

Bursill David D Taylor William J WJ Terkeltaub Robert R Dalbeth Nicola N

Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism 20180328 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>There is currently no standardised nomenclature for the basic disease elements of gout. This study aimed to identify these elements and examine how they are labelled in contemporary medical literature.<h4>Methods</h4>We analysed articles from the ten highest ranked general rheumatology journals, and five highest ranked general internal medicine journals (by Impact Factor, according to 2015 Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports), published between 1 January 2012 and 31 Janua ...[more]

PMID: 29706241

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhysician-directed pharmaceutical advertising is regulated in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); adherence to current FDA guidelines is unknown. Our objective was to determine adherence rates of physician-directed print advertisements in biomedical journals to FDA guidelines and describe content important for safe prescribing.Methods and findingsCross-sectional analysis of November 2008 pharmaceutical advertisements within top U.S.-based biomedical journals publishing original research. We excluded advertisements for devices, over the counter medications, and disease awareness. We utilized FDA guideline items identifying unique forms of advertisement bias to categorize advertisements as adherent to FDA guidelines, possibly non-adherent to at least 1 item, or non-adherent to at least 1 item. We also evaluated advertisement content important for safe prescribing, including benefit quantification, risk information and verifiable references. All advertisements were evaluated by 2 or more investigators, with differences resolved by discussion. Twelve journals met inclusion criteria. Nine contained pharmaceutical advertisements, including 192 advertisements for 82 unique products; median 2 per product (range 1-14). Six "teaser" advertisements presented only drug names, leaving 83 full unique advertisements. Fifteen advertisements (18.1%) adhered to all FDA guidelines, 41 (49.4%) were non-adherent with at least one form of FDA-described bias, and 27 (32.5%) were possibly non-adherent due to incomplete information. Content important for safe prescribing was often incomplete; 57.8% of advertisements did not quantify serious risks, 48.2% lacked verifiable references and 28.9% failed to present adequate efficacy quantification. Study limitations included its focus on advertisements from a single month, the subjectivity of FDA guidelines themselves, and the necessary subjectivity of determinations of adherence.ConclusionsFew physician-directed print pharmaceutical advertisements adhere to all FDA guidelines; over half fail to quantify serious risks. The FDA could better protect public health by creating new more objective advertisement guidelines requiring transparent presentation of basic safety and efficacy information.

Project description:BackgroundWikipedia, the multilingual encyclopedia, was founded in 2001 and is the world's largest and most visited online general reference website. It is widely used by health care professionals and students. The inclusion of journal articles in Wikipedia is of scholarly interest, but the time taken for a journal article to be included in Wikipedia, from the moment of its publication to its incorporation into Wikipedia, is unclear.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the ranking of the most cited journals by their representation in the English-language medical pages of Wikipedia. In addition, we evaluated the number of days between publication of journal articles and their citation in Wikipedia medical pages, treating this measure as a proxy for the information-diffusion rate.MethodsWe retrieved the dates when articles were included in Wikipedia and the date of journal publication from Crossref by using an application programming interface.ResultsFrom 11,325 Wikipedia medical articles, we identified citations to 137,889 journal articles from over 15,000 journals. There was a large spike in the number of journal articles published in or after 2002 that were cited by Wikipedia. The higher the importance of a Wikipedia article, the higher was the mean number of journal citations it contained (top article, 48.13 [SD 33.67]; lowest article, 6.44 [SD 9.33]). However, the importance of the Wikipedia article did not affect the speed of reference addition. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most cited journal by Wikipedia, followed by The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. The multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were among the top 10 journals with the highest Wikipedia medical article citations. For the top biomedical journal papers cited in Wikipedia's medical pages in 2016-2017, it took about 90 days (3 months) for the citation to be used in Wikipedia.ConclusionsWe found evidence of "recentism," which refers to preferential citation of recently published journal articles in Wikipedia. Traditional high-impact medical and multidisciplinary journals were extensively cited by Wikipedia, suggesting that Wikipedia medical articles have robust underpinnings. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing reviews/secondary sources in preference to primary sources, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most referenced journal.

Dataset Information

The nomenclature of the basic disease elements of gout: A content analysis of contemporary medical journals.

Publications

The nomenclature of the basic disease elements of gout: A content analysis of contemporary medical journals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets