Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
All that glitters isn't gold: A survey on acknowledgment of limitations in biomedical studies
PLoS ONE, Volume 8, No. 11, Article e73623, Year 2013
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Background: Acknowledgment of all serious limitations to research evidence is important for patient care and scientific progress. Formal research on how biomedical authors acknowledge limitations is scarce. Objectives: To assess the extent to which limitations are acknowledged in biomedical publications explicitly, and implicitly by investigating the use of phrases that express uncertainty, so-called hedges; to assess the association between industry support and the extent of hedging. Design: We analyzed reporting of limitations and use of hedges in 300 biomedical publications published in 30 high and medium -ranked journals in 2007. Hedges were assessed using linguistic software that assigned weights between 1 and 5 to each expression of uncertainty. Results: Twenty-seven percent of publications (81/300) did not mention any limitations, while 73% acknowledged a median of 3 (range 1-8) limitations. Five percent mentioned a limitation in the abstract. After controlling for confounders, publications on industry-supported studies used significantly fewer hedges than publications not so supported (p = 0.028). Limitations: Detection and classification of limitations was - to some extent - subjective. The weighting scheme used by the hedging detection software has subjective elements. Conclusions: Reporting of limitations in biomedical publications is probably very incomplete. Transparent reporting of limitations may protect clinicians and guideline committees against overly confident beliefs and decisions and support scientific progress through better design, conduct or analysis of new studies. © 2013 ter Riet et al.
Authors & Co-Authors
ter Riet, Gerben
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Universiteit Van Amsterdam
Chesley, Paula
Germany, Tubingen
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Gross, Alan G.
United States, Minneapolis
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
Siebeling, Lara
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Universiteit Van Amsterdam
Muggensturm, Patrick
Switzerland, Zurich
Universität Zürich
Heller, Nadine
Switzerland, Winterthur
Ambulatorium Glattal
Umbehr, Martin H.
Switzerland, Zurich
Universität Zürich
Switzerland, Zurich
Universitatsspital Zurich
Vollenweider, Daniela J.
Switzerland, Zurich
Stadtspital Waid
Yu, Tsung
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Akl, Elie A.
Lebanon, Beirut
American University of Beirut
Canada, Hamilton
Mcmaster University
United States, Buffalo
University at Buffalo, the State University of new York
Brewster, Lizzy M.
Netherlands, Amsterdam
Universiteit Van Amsterdam
Dekkers, Olaf Matthijs
Netherlands, Leiden
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Mühlhauser, Ingrid
Germany, Hamburg
Universität Hamburg
Richter, Bernd
Germany, Dusseldorf
Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf
Singh, Sonal David
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins University
Goodman, Steven N.
United States, Stanford
Stanford University School of Medicine
Puhan, Milo Alan
United States, Baltimore
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Switzerland, Zurich
Institut Für Sozial- Und Präventivmedizin
Statistics
Citations: 20
Authors: 17
Affiliations: 17
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0073623
e-ISSN:
19326203
Research Areas
Health System And Policy
Study Design
Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Quantitative