Understanding the nature and scope of clinical research commentaries in PubMed.

Clicks: 278
ID: 81929
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #24 of 76 articles by views in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Scientific commentaries are expected to play an important role in evidence appraisal, but it is unknown whether this expectation has been fulfilled. This study aims to better understand the role of scientific commentary in evidence appraisal. We queried PubMed for all clinical research articles with accompanying comments and extracted corresponding metadata. Five percent of clinical research studies (N = 130 629) received postpublication comments (N = 171 556), resulting in 178 882 comment-article pairings, with 90% published in the same journal. We obtained 5197 full-text comments for topic modeling and exploratory sentiment analysis. Topics were generally disease specific with only a few topics relevant to the appraisal of studies, which were highly prevalent in letters. Of a random sample of 518 full-text comments, 67% had a supportive tone. Based on our results, published commentary, with the exception of letters, most often highlight or endorse previous publications rather than serve as a prominent mechanism for critical appraisal.
Reference Key
rogers2019understandingjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Rogers, James R;Mills, Hollis;Grossman, Lisa V;Goldstein, Andrew;Weng, Chunhua;
Journal Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Year 2019
DOI
ocz209
URL
Keywords
pubmed scientific communication publishing scientific commentary topic modeling

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.