Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x C4604617!4604617 !26462565     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=26462565 &cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26462565 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       BMC+Med+Res+Methodol 2015 ; 15 (ä): 85 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26462565 |t=2015. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention |pdf=|usr=}}{{26462565 }} gab.com Text Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention JO: BMC Med Res Methodol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26462565 #FOAvip BACKGROUND: Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies. METHODS: In a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials). RESULTS: Among the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84%) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53%) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26%), 25 (20%), and 34 (27%) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48%) articles featured a high level of spin. CONCLUSION: Abstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed. Twit Text FOAVip Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention ????BMC Med Res Methodol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26462565 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26462565 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26462565 }}</ref> Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention #MMPMID26462565 Lazarus C ; Haneef R ; Ravaud P ; Boutron I BMC Med Res Methodol 2015[Oct]; 15 (ä): 85 PMID26462565 show ga BACKGROUND: Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies. METHODS: In a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials). RESULTS: Among the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84%) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53%) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26%), 25 (20%), and 34 (27%) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48%) articles featured a high level of spin. CONCLUSION: Abstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed. |*Bias [MESH] |*Research Design [MESH] |Abstracting and Indexing/*methods [MESH]Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized s(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing