信息图表会 "转述 "健康和医学研究结果吗?

IF 9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033
Ryan Muller, Giovanni Ferreira, Geronimo Bejarano, Andrew R Gamble, James Kirk, James Sindone, Joshua R Zadro
{"title":"信息图表会 \"转述 \"健康和医学研究结果吗?","authors":"Ryan Muller, Giovanni Ferreira, Geronimo Bejarano, Andrew R Gamble, James Kirk, James Sindone, Joshua R Zadro","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To compare the prevalence of ‘spin’, and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Data source Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database). Eligibility criteria Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome. Main outcome(s) and measure(s) Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts). Exposure(s) Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text. Results 119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found. Conclusions Nearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics. Data are available on reasonable request. Original data may be made available by the authors on reasonable request.","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do infographics ‘spin’ the findings of health and medical research?\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Muller, Giovanni Ferreira, Geronimo Bejarano, Andrew R Gamble, James Kirk, James Sindone, Joshua R Zadro\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective To compare the prevalence of ‘spin’, and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Data source Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database). Eligibility criteria Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome. Main outcome(s) and measure(s) Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts). Exposure(s) Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text. Results 119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found. Conclusions Nearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics. Data are available on reasonable request. Original data may be made available by the authors on reasonable request.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9059,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 比较在健康和医学领域报告非显著性研究结果的随机对照试验(RCT)的信息图表、摘要和全文中 "自旋 "的普遍程度以及针对自旋的特定报告策略,并评估与自旋存在相关的因素。设计 横断面观察研究。数据来源 2018年8月至2020年10月在前五分之一健康与医学期刊上发表的文章(期刊引文报告数据库)。资格标准 主要结果不显著的 RCT 的信息图表、摘要和全文。主要结果和衡量标准 是否存在自旋(信息图表、摘要和全文的结果和结论中的任何自旋和自旋)。利益冲突、行业赞助、试验注册、期刊影响因子、摘要中的自旋、全文中的自旋。结果 共收录了来自 40 种期刊的 119 项研究。三分之一(33%)的信息图表中包含自旋内容。与摘要(33% vs 26%,OR 1.4;95% CI 0.8-2.4)或全文(33% vs 26%,OR 1.4;95% CI 0.8-2.4)相比,信息图表中含有自旋成分的可能性并不大。期刊影响因子越高,信息图表和全文中出现自旋的几率就越低,而摘要中出现自旋的几率则不高。如果试验是前瞻性注册的,信息图表(而非摘要或全文)中包含自旋的可能性较低。没有发现其他重要关联。结论 近三分之一的信息图表对主要结果不显著的 RCT 结果进行了转述,但转述的普遍程度并不高于摘要和全文。鉴于信息图表在传播研究成果方面越来越受欢迎,因此迫切需要改进信息图表中的研究报告。如有合理要求,可提供数据。作者可根据合理要求提供原始数据。
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
Do infographics ‘spin’ the findings of health and medical research?
Objective To compare the prevalence of ‘spin’, and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Data source Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database). Eligibility criteria Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome. Main outcome(s) and measure(s) Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts). Exposure(s) Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text. Results 119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found. Conclusions Nearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics. Data are available on reasonable request. Original data may be made available by the authors on reasonable request.
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
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
期刊最新文献
Insights on the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM) guideline addressing medical overuse. Reporting health and medical research. CARE-radiology statement explanation and elaboration: reporting guideline for radiological case reports. Quantifying the time-varying association between objectively measured physical activity and mortality in US older adults over a 12-year follow-up period: the NHANES 2003-2006 study. Direct-to-consumer advertising: a modifiable driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
×
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