ORCID Profile
0000-0001-7146-4740
Current Organisations
Luxembourg Institute of Health
,
University of Oxford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 28-08-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.25.21262631
Abstract: We estimated the degree to which language used in the high profile medical ublic 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 and screened for 1,170 articles from 18 high-profile journals (65 per journal) published from 2010-2019. Based on written framing and systematic guidance, three 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 34.2%, Moderate 33.2%, and Strong 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%). Reviewer’s 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.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 04-08-2022
DOI: 10.1093/AJE/KWAC137
Abstract: We estimated the degree to which language used in the high-profile medical ublic 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.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 14-10-2020
DOI: 10.1002/IJC.33326
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Sophie Pilleron.