Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Mar;15(1):85-139.
doi: 10.1007/s40268-015-0085-9.

Use of Adjectives in Abstracts When Reporting Results of Randomized, Controlled Trials From Industry and Academia

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Use of Adjectives in Abstracts When Reporting Results of Randomized, Controlled Trials From Industry and Academia

M Soledad Cepeda et al. Drugs R D. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Objective: Accurate representation of study findings is crucial to preserve public trust. The language used to describe results could affect perceptions of the efficacy or safety of interventions. We sought to compare the adjectives used in clinical trial reports of industry-authored and non-industry-authored research.

Methods: We included studies in PubMed that were randomized trials and had an abstract. Studies were classified as "non-industry-authored" when all authors had academic or governmental affiliations, or as "industry-authored" when any of the authors had industry affiliations. Abstracts were analyzed using a part-of-speech tagger to identify adjectives. To reduce the risk of false positives, the analysis was restricted to adjectives considered relevant to "coloring" (influencing interpretation) of trial results. Differences between groups were determined using exact tests, stratifying by journal.

Results: A total of 306,007 publications met the inclusion criteria. We were able to classify 16,789 abstracts; 9,085 were industry-authored research, and 7,704 were non-industry-authored research. We found a differential use of adjectives between industry-authored and non-industry-authored reports. Adjectives such as "well tolerated" and "meaningful" were more commonly used in the title or conclusion of the abstract by industry authors, while adjectives such as "feasible" were more commonly used by non-industry authors.

Conclusions: There are differences in the adjectives used when study findings are described in industry-authored reports compared with non-industry-authored reports. Authors should avoid overusing adjectives that could be inaccurate or result in misperceptions. Editors and peer reviewers should be attentive to the use of adjectives and assess whether the usage is context appropriate.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

References

    1. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1385–1389. doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867–872. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):726–732. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Han C, Kwak KP, Marks DM, Pae CU, Wu LT, Bhatia KS, et al. The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(2):116–122. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.11.004. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alvarez F, Meyer N, Gourraud PA, Paul C. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(5):1159–1165. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09382.x. - DOI - PubMed
Feedback