TY - JOUR
T1 - A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available
AU - Wang, Shuang
AU - Kilicoglu, Halil
AU - Du, Jian
N1 - This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71603280, 72074006), Peking University Health Science Center and the Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by the China Association for Science and Technology (2017QNRC001).
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Background: Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available. Methods: Evidence–comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims. Results: The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release. Conclusions: Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making.
AB - Background: Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available. Methods: Evidence–comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims. Results: The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release. Conclusions: Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making.
KW - Evidence appraisal
KW - Evidence-based policy-making
KW - Evidence–comment network
KW - Scientific commentary
KW - Sentiment analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150951766&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85150951766&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12961-023-00969-9
DO - 10.1186/s12961-023-00969-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 36973785
AN - SCOPUS:85150951766
SN - 1478-4505
VL - 21
JO - Health Research Policy and Systems
JF - Health Research Policy and Systems
IS - 1
M1 - 25
ER -