在血液学和肿瘤学会议上使用主观性最小化语言:系统回顾

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Cancer Policy Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100461
Abdel-Azez Abusamak , Mohammad Abusamak , Mohammed Al-Abbadi , Abdallah Rayyan , Omar Oran , Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin , Amar H. Kelkar , Aaron M. Goodman , Rajshekhar Chakraborty , Edward R.Scheffer Cliff , Samer Al Hadidi
{"title":"在血液学和肿瘤学会议上使用主观性最小化语言:系统回顾","authors":"Abdel-Azez Abusamak ,&nbsp;Mohammad Abusamak ,&nbsp;Mohammed Al-Abbadi ,&nbsp;Abdallah Rayyan ,&nbsp;Omar Oran ,&nbsp;Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin ,&nbsp;Amar H. Kelkar ,&nbsp;Aaron M. Goodman ,&nbsp;Rajshekhar Chakraborty ,&nbsp;Edward R.Scheffer Cliff ,&nbsp;Samer Al Hadidi","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Subjective minimizing language in oncology<span> conferences may undermine patient-centered care and hinder comprehensive treatment strategies. Subjective terms like \"safe,\" \"tolerable,\" and \"well-tolerated\" can vary in interpretation among individuals, making it difficult to compare results across trials and potentially downplaying significant risks and limitations associated with treatments.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span><span>This study evaluates subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences and its use in adverse event reporting. We conducted a search of three electronic databases, ASCO, </span>ASH<span>, and ESMO<span>, for published abstracts from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. This study included prospective cohort studies or </span></span></span>clinical trials in humans that used safety terms like \"safe,\" \"well-tolerated,\" \"tolerable,\" \"no new safety signal,\" or \"no new safety concern\" in the abstract text.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Out of 34,975 reviewed records, 5299 (15.2%) abstracts used subjective minimizing language terms. The analysis included 2797 (52.8%) abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were Phase 1 trials (45.5%), followed by Phase 2 (29.6%) and Phase 3 trials (7.4%). Solid tumors<span> accounted for the most common disease category (56.5%), followed by malignant hematology following (37.1%). Subjective minimizing terms like \"safe\" (69.2%), \"well-tolerated\" (53.2%), \"tolerable\" (25.6%), and \"no new safety signal/concerns\" (10%) were used frequently. Of the abstracts using subjective minimizing language (n = 2797), 81.9% reported data on any grade adverse events (AEs). Grade I/II AEs were reported in 62.6% of abstracts, Grade III/IV AEs in 78%, and Grade V AEs (death related to AEs) in 8.8%. Discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 11.4% (SD 9.5%) of studies using subjective minimizing language terms.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Frequent use of subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences' abstracts may obscure interpretation of study results and the safety of novel treatments. Researchers and clinicians should provide precise and standardized information to avoid overstatement of benefits and understand the true impact of interventions on patients' safety and well-being.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 100461"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of subjective minimizing language at hematology and oncology conferences: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Abdel-Azez Abusamak ,&nbsp;Mohammad Abusamak ,&nbsp;Mohammed Al-Abbadi ,&nbsp;Abdallah Rayyan ,&nbsp;Omar Oran ,&nbsp;Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin ,&nbsp;Amar H. Kelkar ,&nbsp;Aaron M. Goodman ,&nbsp;Rajshekhar Chakraborty ,&nbsp;Edward R.Scheffer Cliff ,&nbsp;Samer Al Hadidi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Subjective minimizing language in oncology<span> conferences may undermine patient-centered care and hinder comprehensive treatment strategies. Subjective terms like \\\"safe,\\\" \\\"tolerable,\\\" and \\\"well-tolerated\\\" can vary in interpretation among individuals, making it difficult to compare results across trials and potentially downplaying significant risks and limitations associated with treatments.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span><span>This study evaluates subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences and its use in adverse event reporting. We conducted a search of three electronic databases, ASCO, </span>ASH<span>, and ESMO<span>, for published abstracts from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. This study included prospective cohort studies or </span></span></span>clinical trials in humans that used safety terms like \\\"safe,\\\" \\\"well-tolerated,\\\" \\\"tolerable,\\\" \\\"no new safety signal,\\\" or \\\"no new safety concern\\\" in the abstract text.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Out of 34,975 reviewed records, 5299 (15.2%) abstracts used subjective minimizing language terms. The analysis included 2797 (52.8%) abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were Phase 1 trials (45.5%), followed by Phase 2 (29.6%) and Phase 3 trials (7.4%). Solid tumors<span> accounted for the most common disease category (56.5%), followed by malignant hematology following (37.1%). Subjective minimizing terms like \\\"safe\\\" (69.2%), \\\"well-tolerated\\\" (53.2%), \\\"tolerable\\\" (25.6%), and \\\"no new safety signal/concerns\\\" (10%) were used frequently. Of the abstracts using subjective minimizing language (n = 2797), 81.9% reported data on any grade adverse events (AEs). Grade I/II AEs were reported in 62.6% of abstracts, Grade III/IV AEs in 78%, and Grade V AEs (death related to AEs) in 8.8%. Discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 11.4% (SD 9.5%) of studies using subjective minimizing language terms.</span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Frequent use of subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences' abstracts may obscure interpretation of study results and the safety of novel treatments. Researchers and clinicians should provide precise and standardized information to avoid overstatement of benefits and understand the true impact of interventions on patients' safety and well-being.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"volume\":\"39 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100461\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000784\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景肿瘤学会议中主观性最小化的语言可能会破坏以患者为中心的护理,阻碍综合治疗策略的实施。安全"、"可耐受 "和 "耐受性良好 "等主观用语可能因人而异,从而难以比较不同试验的结果,并可能淡化与治疗相关的重大风险和局限性。方法本研究评估了主要肿瘤学会议中的主观最小化用语及其在不良事件报告中的使用情况。我们在 ASCO、ASH 和 ESMO 三个电子数据库中检索了 2019 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 31 日期间发表的摘要。本研究纳入了在摘要文本中使用了 "安全"、"耐受性良好"、"可耐受"、"无新的安全信号 "或 "无新的安全问题 "等安全性术语的前瞻性队列研究或人体临床试验。结果在34975条审查记录中,5299条(15.2%)摘要使用了主观最小化语言术语。分析包括 2797 份(52.8%)符合纳入标准的摘要。大多数研究是 1 期试验(45.5%),其次是 2 期试验(29.6%)和 3 期试验(7.4%)。实体瘤是最常见的疾病类别(56.5%),其次是恶性血液病(37.1%)。主观最小化术语的使用频率很高,如 "安全"(69.2%)、"耐受性良好"(53.2%)、"可耐受"(25.6%)和 "无新的安全信号/疑虑"(10%)。在使用主观性最小化语言的摘要(n = 2797)中,81.9%报告了任何级别的不良事件(AEs)数据。62.6% 的摘要报告了 I/II 级不良事件,78% 报告了 III/IV 级不良事件,8.8% 报告了 V 级不良事件(与不良事件相关的死亡)。在使用主观最小化语言术语的研究中,11.4%(标准差 9.5%)的研究因 AEs 而终止。研究人员和临床医生应提供准确和标准化的信息,以避免夸大疗效,并了解干预措施对患者安全和福祉的真正影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Use of subjective minimizing language at hematology and oncology conferences: A systematic review

Background

Subjective minimizing language in oncology conferences may undermine patient-centered care and hinder comprehensive treatment strategies. Subjective terms like "safe," "tolerable," and "well-tolerated" can vary in interpretation among individuals, making it difficult to compare results across trials and potentially downplaying significant risks and limitations associated with treatments.

Methods

This study evaluates subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences and its use in adverse event reporting. We conducted a search of three electronic databases, ASCO, ASH, and ESMO, for published abstracts from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. This study included prospective cohort studies or clinical trials in humans that used safety terms like "safe," "well-tolerated," "tolerable," "no new safety signal," or "no new safety concern" in the abstract text.

Results

Out of 34,975 reviewed records, 5299 (15.2%) abstracts used subjective minimizing language terms. The analysis included 2797 (52.8%) abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were Phase 1 trials (45.5%), followed by Phase 2 (29.6%) and Phase 3 trials (7.4%). Solid tumors accounted for the most common disease category (56.5%), followed by malignant hematology following (37.1%). Subjective minimizing terms like "safe" (69.2%), "well-tolerated" (53.2%), "tolerable" (25.6%), and "no new safety signal/concerns" (10%) were used frequently. Of the abstracts using subjective minimizing language (n = 2797), 81.9% reported data on any grade adverse events (AEs). Grade I/II AEs were reported in 62.6% of abstracts, Grade III/IV AEs in 78%, and Grade V AEs (death related to AEs) in 8.8%. Discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 11.4% (SD 9.5%) of studies using subjective minimizing language terms.

Conclusions

Frequent use of subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences' abstracts may obscure interpretation of study results and the safety of novel treatments. Researchers and clinicians should provide precise and standardized information to avoid overstatement of benefits and understand the true impact of interventions on patients' safety and well-being.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Policy
Journal of Cancer Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
65 days
期刊最新文献
Rapid diagnostic pathways for prostate cancer: A realist synthesis. Time in the U.S. and Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence Among Diverse Immigrants. Overcoming barriers of cervical cancer elimination in India: A practice to policy level advocacy. Precision oncology implementation in a regional-based health care system: A professional consensus to define the pathway Analysis of 810 tweets from 25 unofficial ASCO representatives (Featured Voices) at ASCO 2024
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1