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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Shuang, Kilicoglu, Halil, Du, Jian
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