Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective analysis

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 351, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Vinkers, Christiaan H ^a   Tijdink, Joeri K ^b   Otte, Willem M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; AUTHOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; LEXICOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS; NEGATIVE WORD; NOMENCLATURE; PERCEPTION; POSITIVE WORD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; TREND STUDY; WORD FREQUENCY; WORD USE; WRITING; WRITTEN LANGUAGE; AFFECT; DOCUMENTATION; HISTORY; HUMAN; MEDLINE;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; AFFECT; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; PUBMED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84959245120     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6467     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ridker PM, Rifai N. Expanding options for scientific publication: is more always better?Circulation 2013;127: 155-6. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.155952 23319809
2. Boyack KW, Klavans R, Sorensen AA, Ioannidis JP. A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996-2011. Eur J Clin Invest 2013;43: 1339-65. doi:10.1111/eci. 12171 24134636
3. Fraser AG, Dunstan FD. On the impossibility of being expert. BMJ 2010;341: c6815. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6815 21156739
4. Publish or perish. Nature 2015;521: 259. 25993920
5. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 2014;383: 101-4. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6 24411643
6. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2: e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 16060722
7. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 2010;303: 2058-64. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.651 20501928
8. Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, et al . Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". Radiology 2013;267: 581-8. doi:10.1148/ radiol.12120527 23360738
9. Lockyer S, Hodgson R, Dumville JC, Cullum N. "Spin" in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes. Trials 2013;14: 371. doi:10. 1186/1745-6215-14-371 24195770
10. Patel SV, Chadi SA, Choi J, Colquhoun PH. The use of "spin" in laparoscopic lower GI surgical trials with nonsignificant results: an assessment of reporting and interpretation of the primary outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56: 1388-94. doi:10.1097/01.dcr. 0000436466.50341.c5 24201393
11. Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, et al . Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2014;32: 4120-6. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7503 25403215
12. Lazarus C, Haneef R, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015;15: 85. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x 26462565
13. Dodds PS, Clark EM, Desu S. Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112: 2389-94. doi:10.1073/pnas.1411678112 25675475
14. Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study [correction in BMJ 2014;349:g7666]. BMJ 2014;349: g7015. doi:10.1136/bmj. g7015 25498121
15. McCarthy M. Superlatives are commonly used in news coverage of cancer drugs, study finds. BMJ 2015;351: h5803. doi:10.1136/bmj.h5803 26525225
16. Ogden's basic English. Homepage. 2012. http://ogden.basic-english.org/basiceng.html.
17. Michel JB, Shen YK, Aiden APGoogle Books Team. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 2011;331: 176-82. doi:10.1126/science. 1199644 21163965
18. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJReporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One 2013;8: e66844. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844 23861749
19. Ioannidis JP. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med 2014;11: e1001747. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747 25334033
20. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374: 86-9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 19525005
21. Abola MV, Prasad V. The use of superlatives in cancer research. JAMA Oncol 2015, doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3931. 26512913