Cargando…

Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency

Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Puhan, Milo A, Akl, Elie A, Bryant, Dianne, Xie, Feng, Apolone, Giovanni, Riet, Gerben ter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22360847
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-23
_version_ 1782227059233259520
author Puhan, Milo A
Akl, Elie A
Bryant, Dianne
Xie, Feng
Apolone, Giovanni
Riet, Gerben ter
author_facet Puhan, Milo A
Akl, Elie A
Bryant, Dianne
Xie, Feng
Apolone, Giovanni
Riet, Gerben ter
author_sort Puhan, Milo A
collection PubMed
description Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the risk of being unable to publish their work. Currently, too few papers in the medical literature frankly discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations. The goals of this commentary are to review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the medical literature, to discuss the implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists submitting their papers to journals. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty) and who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers. We strongly encourage authors to report on all potentially important limitations that may have affected the quality and interpretation of the evidence being presented. This will not only benefit science but also offers incentives for authors: If not all important limitations are acknowledged readers and reviewers of scientific articles may perceive that the authors were unaware of them. Authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers. Articles discussing limitations help shape the future research agenda and are likely to be cited because they have informed the design and conduct of future studies. Instead of perceiving acknowledgment of limitations negatively, authors, reviewers and editors should recognize the potential of a frank and unbiased discussion of study limitations that should not jeopardize acceptance of manuscripts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3305390
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33053902012-03-16 Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency Puhan, Milo A Akl, Elie A Bryant, Dianne Xie, Feng Apolone, Giovanni Riet, Gerben ter Health Qual Life Outcomes Commentary Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the risk of being unable to publish their work. Currently, too few papers in the medical literature frankly discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations. The goals of this commentary are to review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the medical literature, to discuss the implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists submitting their papers to journals. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty) and who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers. We strongly encourage authors to report on all potentially important limitations that may have affected the quality and interpretation of the evidence being presented. This will not only benefit science but also offers incentives for authors: If not all important limitations are acknowledged readers and reviewers of scientific articles may perceive that the authors were unaware of them. Authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers. Articles discussing limitations help shape the future research agenda and are likely to be cited because they have informed the design and conduct of future studies. Instead of perceiving acknowledgment of limitations negatively, authors, reviewers and editors should recognize the potential of a frank and unbiased discussion of study limitations that should not jeopardize acceptance of manuscripts. BioMed Central 2012-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3305390/ /pubmed/22360847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-23 Text en Copyright ©2012 Puhan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
Puhan, Milo A
Akl, Elie A
Bryant, Dianne
Xie, Feng
Apolone, Giovanni
Riet, Gerben ter
Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency
title Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency
title_full Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency
title_fullStr Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency
title_full_unstemmed Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency
title_short Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency
title_sort discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22360847
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-23
work_keys_str_mv AT puhanmiloa discussingstudylimitationsinreportsofbiomedicalstudiestheneedformoretransparency
AT akleliea discussingstudylimitationsinreportsofbiomedicalstudiestheneedformoretransparency
AT bryantdianne discussingstudylimitationsinreportsofbiomedicalstudiestheneedformoretransparency
AT xiefeng discussingstudylimitationsinreportsofbiomedicalstudiestheneedformoretransparency
AT apolonegiovanni discussingstudylimitationsinreportsofbiomedicalstudiestheneedformoretransparency
AT rietgerbenter discussingstudylimitationsinreportsofbiomedicalstudiestheneedformoretransparency