Dataset Information

Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes.

ABSTRACT: In a 2003 paper in BMJ, the authors made the tongue-in-cheek observation that there are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of parachutes. This paper has been widely read, cited and used to argue that RCTs are impractical or unnecessary for some medical practices. We performed a study to identify and evaluate claims that a medical practice is akin to a parachute.Using Google Scholar, we identified all citations to the 2003 paper. We searched for claims that a specific practice was akin to a parachute. For each practice, we identified the desired outcome of the practice, and searched Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs that were conducted, ongoing, halted, planned or unpublished.Of 822 articles citing the original paper, 35 (4.1%) argued that a medical practice was akin to a parachute. Eighteen of the 35 (51%) concerned mortality or live birth, and 17 (49%) concerned a lesser outcome. For 22 practices (63%), we identified 1 or more RCTs: in 6 cases (27%), the trials showed a statistically significant benefit of the practice; in 5 (23%), the trials rejected the practice; in 5 (23%), the trials had mixed results; in 2 (9%), the trials were halted; and in 4 (18%), the trials were ongoing. Effect size was calculated for 5 of the 6 practices for which RCTs gave positive results, and the absolute risk reduction ranged from 11% to 30.8%, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 3-9.Although there is widespread interest regarding the BMJ paper arguing that randomized trials are not necessary for practices of clear benefit, there are few analogies in medicine. Most parachute analogies in medicine are inappropriate, incorrect or misused.

SUBMITTER: Hayes MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5878948 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes.

Hayes Michael J MJ Kaestner Victoria V Mailankody Sham S Prasad Vinay V

CMAJ open 20180101 1

<h4>Background</h4>In a 2003 paper in <i>BMJ</i>, the authors made the tongue-in-cheek observation that there are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of parachutes. This paper has been widely read, cited and used to argue that RCTs are impractical or unnecessary for some medical practices. We performed a study to identify and evaluate claims that a medical practice is akin to a parachute.<h4>Methods</h4>Using Google Scholar, we identified all citations to the 2003 paper. We searched for claim ...[more]

PMID: 29343497

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

Project description:BackgroundRobust statistical designing, sound statistical analysis, and standardized presentation are important to enhance the quality and transparency of biomedical research. This systematic review was conducted to summarize the statistical reporting requirements introduced by biomedical research journals with an impact factor of 10 or above so that researchers are able to give statistical issues' serious considerations not only at the stage of data analysis but also at the stage of methodological design.MethodsDetailed statistical instructions for authors were downloaded from the homepage of each of the included journals or obtained from the editors directly via email. Then, we described the types and numbers of statistical guidelines introduced by different press groups. Items of statistical reporting guideline as well as particular requirements were summarized in frequency, which were grouped into design, method of analysis, and presentation, respectively. Finally, updated statistical guidelines and particular requirements for improvement were summed up.ResultsTotally, 21 of 23 press groups introduced at least one statistical guideline. More than half of press groups can update their statistical instruction for authors gradually relative to issues of new statistical reporting guidelines. In addition, 16 press groups, covering 44 journals, address particular statistical requirements. The most of the particular requirements focused on the performance of statistical analysis and transparency in statistical reporting, including "address issues relevant to research design, including participant flow diagram, eligibility criteria, and sample size estimation," and "statistical methods and the reasons."ConclusionsStatistical requirements for authors are becoming increasingly perfected. Statistical requirements for authors remind researchers that they should make sufficient consideration not only in regards to statistical methods during the research design, but also standardized statistical reporting, which would be beneficial in providing stronger evidence and making a greater critical appraisal of evidence more accessible.

Project description:ImportanceBoth citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.ObjectiveTo evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.ResultsThere were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.

Dataset Information

Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes.

Publications

Most medical practices are not parachutes: a citation analysis of practices felt by biomedical authors to be analogous to parachutes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets