|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Tuesday, July 18, 2006What did their small sample find? That cleverly named studies (MRFIT, ALLHAT, etc.) are cited as references twice as often as those with boring names, but that they also tend to be better studies - longer duration, better methodology, larger sample size. The authors' conclusions: Although other explanations are possible (for example, exemplary investigators may generate both clever acronyms and important research), these results support the hypothesis that naming randomized trials with an acronym may enhance the citation rate. This is consistent with the function of acronyms in human language as effective mnemonic tools.2 Their influence might also be subliminal, since specific acronyms could invoke subconscious value-laden associations that might enhance positive perceptions of the studies they name, a phenomenon in cognitive psychology known as "automatic attitude activation."5 Enhanced attention to and recall of studies through the use of acronyms may facilitate the appropriate translation of research findings into clinical practice. If acronyms exert influence independently of normative markers of clinical credibility, however, such influence is not rational scientifically, even if it is understandable psychologically. Consequently, this subtle linguistic tool could undermine evidence-based practice. The observed close association between acronym use and sponsorship by the pharmaceutical industry amplifies this concern. You can't always tell a study by it's title, but you sure can remember it better. posted by Sydney on 7/18/2006 01:29:00 PM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
