Cargando…
A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available
BACKGROUND: Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice,...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042414/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36973785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00969-9 |
_version_ | 1784912930685321216 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Shuang Kilicoglu, Halil Du, Jian |
author_facet | Wang, Shuang Kilicoglu, Halil Du, Jian |
author_sort | Wang, Shuang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available. METHODS: Evidence–comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims. RESULTS: The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release. CONCLUSIONS: Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-00969-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10042414 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100424142023-03-28 A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available Wang, Shuang Kilicoglu, Halil Du, Jian Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available. METHODS: Evidence–comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims. RESULTS: The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release. CONCLUSIONS: Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-023-00969-9. BioMed Central 2023-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10042414/ /pubmed/36973785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00969-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Wang, Shuang Kilicoglu, Halil Du, Jian A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available |
title | A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available |
title_full | A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available |
title_fullStr | A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available |
title_full_unstemmed | A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available |
title_short | A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available |
title_sort | comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10042414/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36973785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00969-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wangshuang acommentdrivenevidenceappraisalapproachtopromotingresearchfindingsintopracticewhenonlyuncertainevidenceisavailable AT kilicogluhalil acommentdrivenevidenceappraisalapproachtopromotingresearchfindingsintopracticewhenonlyuncertainevidenceisavailable AT dujian acommentdrivenevidenceappraisalapproachtopromotingresearchfindingsintopracticewhenonlyuncertainevidenceisavailable AT wangshuang commentdrivenevidenceappraisalapproachtopromotingresearchfindingsintopracticewhenonlyuncertainevidenceisavailable AT kilicogluhalil commentdrivenevidenceappraisalapproachtopromotingresearchfindingsintopracticewhenonlyuncertainevidenceisavailable AT dujian commentdrivenevidenceappraisalapproachtopromotingresearchfindingsintopracticewhenonlyuncertainevidenceisavailable |