Reading Between the Lines: Navigating Nuance in Medical Literature to Optimize Clinical Decision-Making and Health Care Outcomes

References

• Moore DE, Green JS, Gallis HA. Achieving desired results and improved outcomes: integrating planning and assessment throughout learning activities. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29(1):1–15. doi:10.1002/chp.20001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. Clinical Center. Ethics in clinical research. Ethical Guidelines. Available from: https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/ethics.html. Accessed February 6, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute on Aging. National Institutes of Health. What are clinical trials and studies? Available from: https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-are-clinical-trials-and-studies. Accessed February 6, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Clinical trials. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/clinical-trials#tab=tab_1. Accessed February 6, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. ISMPP Issues and Actions Committee. The rationale and value of medical publications. Available from: https://www.ismpp.org/assets/docs/Inititives/advocacy/the_rationale_and_value_of_medical_publications.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Doximity. Physician learning preferences. A Doximity report; 2022. Available from: https://assets.doxcdn.com/image/upload/pdfs/physician-learning-report-2022.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Korenstein D. Blinding them with science? Evidence-based medicine as a barrier to health care value. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(1):106–108. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-15-00570.1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caverly TJ, Matlock DD, Prochazka AV, Lucas BP, Hayward RA. Interpreting clinical trial outcomes for optimal patient care: a survey of clinicians and trainees. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(1):57–62. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-15-00137.1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moynihan CK, Burke PA, Evans SA, O’Donoghue AC, Sullivan HW. Physicians’ understanding of clinical trial data in professional prescription drug promotion. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(4):645–649. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2018.04.170242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudewyns V, O’Donoghue AC, Paquin RS, Aikin KJ, Ferriola-Bruckenstein K, Scorr VM. Physician interpretation of data of uncertain clinical utility in oncology prescription drug promotion. Oncologist. 2021;26(12):1071–1078. doi:10.1002/onco.13972
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamtchum-Tatuene J, Zafack JG. Keeping up with the medical literature: why, how, and when? Stroke. 2021;52(11):e746–e748. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.036141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manley M, Maldonado M, Hall A, Barrett E Drinking from the fire hose of emerging medical literature. Hospitalist; 2022. Available from: https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/31969/career/keeping-up-with-medical-literature/. Accessed February 17, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Quan MA, Newton WP. Helping family physicians keep up to date: a next step in pursuit of mastery. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020;33(Suppl):S24–S27. doi:10.3122/jabfm.S1.200154
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berger R, Ramaswami R. Keeping up with the medical literature. N Engl J Med Resident. 2014:360.
   Google Scholar
• Flaxman N. How to keep up with medical literature. JAMA. 1954;154(17):1409–1410. doi:10.1001/jama.1954.02940510009004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt GH, Walker CJ, Sackett DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: i. Why try to keep up and how to get started. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105(1):149–153. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-105-1-149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. List of all journals cited in PubMed. Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/serfile_addedinfo.html. Accessed February 17, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. MEDLINE citation counts by year of publication (as of January 2022). Available from: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline_cit_counts_yr_pub.html. Accessed February 17, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• The Lancet. Graphical abstracts. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/infographics/graphical-abstracts. Accessed February 16, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0224697. doi:10.1371/journl.ppone.0224697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Springer Healthcare. Adis digital features—Springer Healthcare. Available from: https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/. Accessed February 16, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• McMahon GT, Ingelfinger JR, Campion EW. Videos in Clinical Medicine—A new Journal feature. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1635. doi:10.1056/NEJMe068044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonseca P. Digital enhancements for primary medical manuscripts: a survey on perceptions, challenges, and needs of medical publication professionals. AMWA J. 2021;36(3):110–114. doi:10.55752/amwa.2021.46
   Google Scholar
• Power EGM. Considerations for effective communication of medical information. Pharm Med. 2023;37(2):97–101. doi:10.1007/s40290-023-00461-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora Y, Llaneras N, Arora N, Carillo R. Social media and physician education. Cureus. 2021;13(10):e19081. doi:10.7759/cureus.19081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishra B, Saini M, Doherty CM, et al. Use of twitter in neurology: boon or bane? J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e25229. doi:10.2196/25229:
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager J, Dubovsky SL, Roy-Byrne PP. Keeping up with the psychiatric literature: a survival guide. Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(6):359–364. doi:10.1159/000517867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaughnessy AF. Keeping up with the medical literature: how to set up a system. Am Fam Physician. 2009;79(1):25–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu B. Keeping up with medical knowledge: how to stay on top of medical advances. Health. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Geiselmann M, Bitterman AD What is the significance of the impact factor on medical publishing? StatPearls; 2021. Available from: https://www.statpearls.com/ExamPrep/medical-student-resources/what-is-The-significance-of-The-impact-factor-on-medical-publishing. Accessed February 17, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Herbert R. Accept me, accept me not: what do journal acceptance rates really mean? ICSR Perspectives. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Altmetric.com. What are altmetrics? Available from: https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/what-are-altmetrics/. Accessed February 20, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Pal A, Rees TJ. Introducing the EMPIRE Index: a novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0265381. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frampton G, Woods L, Scott DA. Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: a cross-sectional study on COVID-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258935. doi:10.1371/journalpone.0258935
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retraction Watch. Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/. Accessed February 20, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, Egilman DS, Fernández E. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2022;379:e071517. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Retraction Watch. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/. Accessed February 20, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Else H, Van Noorden R. The battle against paper mills. Nature. 2021;591:516–519. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Publication Ethics and the Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Paper mills. Research report from COPE & STM. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/paper-mills-cope-stm-research-report.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576(7786):210–212. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beall’s List. Beall’s list of potential predatory journals and publishers. 2021. Available from: https://beallslist.net/. Accessed February 20, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Nature.com. Publishing options. Available from: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/publishing-options. Accessed February 20, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Björk B-C, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med. 2012;10(1):73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rodrigues RS, Abadal E, de Araújo BKH. Open access publishers: the new players. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0233432. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233432
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagin A, Bibbins-Domingo K, Berkwitz M, Christiansen SL. Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. JAMA. 2023;329(8):637–639. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.1344
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Publication Ethics. Authorship and AI tools. COPE position statement. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author. Accessed March 14, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Publication Ethics. Artificial intelligence (AI) and fake papers. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussions/artificial-intelligence-fake-paper. Accessed March 14, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• World Association of Medical Editors. Chatbots, chatGPT, and scholarly manuscripts. WAME recommendations on ChatGPT and chatbots in relation to scholarly publications. Available from: https://wame.org/page3.php?id=106. Accessed March 14, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Nature Portfolio. Authorship. Available from: https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/authorship. Accessed March 14, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Elsevier. Publishing ethics for editors. Duties of authors. The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics#Authors. Accessed March 14, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Loten A Uncertain economy spurs growth in AI-powered office automation. Companies strive to fuel growth without adding to payrolls, corporate technology chiefs say. Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/uncertain-economy-spurs-growth-in-ai-powered-office-automation-11675282156. Accessed March 10, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Orlando FA, Governale KM, Estores IM. Appraising important medical literature biases: uncorrected statistical mistakes and conflicts of interest. Front Med. 2022;9:925643. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.925643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitra-Majumdar M, Kesselheim AS. Reporting bias in clinical trials: progress toward transparency and next steps. PLoS Med. 2022;19(1):e1003894. doi:10.1371/journalpmed.1003894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsley K, Fusco N, Li T, Scholten R, Hooft L. Clinical trial registration was associated with lower risk of bias compared to non-registered trials among trials included in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;145:164–173. doi:10.1016/j.clinepi.2022.01.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne HAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2019;366:I4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.I4898
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips MR, Kaiser P, Thabane L, Bhandari M, Chaudary V; and for the Retina Evidence Trials InterNational Alliance (R.E.T.I.N.A) Study Group. Risk of bias: why measure it, and how? Eye. 2022;36(2):346–348. doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01759-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, et al. Ch. 7: considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, editors. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Int. Vol. 2. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ranganathan P, Aggarwal R. Study designs: part I—an overview and classification. Perspect Clin Res. 2018;9(4):184–186. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_124_18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bradley SH, De Vito NJ, Lloyd KE, et al. Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. J R Soc Med. 2020;113(11):433–443. doi:10.1177/0141076820956799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Izem R. Novel clinical trial design and analytic methods to tackle challenges in therapeutic development in rare diseases. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(18):1034. doi:10.21037/atm-21-5496
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch LJ. Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: the tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(9):811–821. doi:10.4065/84.9.811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanier WL. Bidirectional conflicts of interest involving industry and medical journals: who will champion integrity? Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(9):771–775. doi:10.4065/84.9.771
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross PT, Zaidi NLB. Limited by our limitations. Perspect Med Educ. 2019;8:261–264. doi:10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70(2):129–133. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne V, Shakir SAW. what is the difference between observed association and causal association, signals and evidence? Examples related to COVID-19. Front Pharmacol. 2021;11:569189. doi:10.3389/fphar.2020.569189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar