Abstract
We estimated the degree to which language used in the high-profile medical/public health/epidemiology literature implied causality using language linking exposures to outcomes and action recommendations;examined disconnects between language and recommendations;identified the most common linking phrases;and estimated how strongly linking phrases imply causality. We searched for and screened 1,170 articles from 18 high-profile journals (65 per journal) published from 2010-2019. Based on written framing and systematic guidance, 3 reviewers rated the degree of causality implied in abstracts and full text for exposure/outcome linking language and action recommendations. Reviewers rated the causal implication of exposure/outcome linking language as none (no causal implication) in 13.8%, weak in 34.2%, moderate in 33.2%, and strong in 18.7% of abstracts. The implied causality of action recommendations was higher than the implied causality of linking sentences for 44.5% or commensurate for 40.3% of articles. The most common linking word in abstracts was associate (45.7%). Reviewers' ratings of linking word roots were highly heterogeneous;over half of reviewers rated association as having at least some causal implication. This research undercuts the assumption that avoiding causal words leads to clarity of interpretation in medical research.
| Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
|---|---|
| Fakultät: | Medizin
Medizin > Institut und Poliklinik für Arbeits-, Sozial- und Umweltmedizin |
| Themengebiete: | 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
| ISSN: | 0002-9262 |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Dokumenten ID: | 113059 |
| Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 02. Apr. 2024 07:44 |
| Letzte Änderungen: | 11. Sep. 2024 11:55 |
