Physician characteristics associated with proper assessment of overstated conclusions in research abstracts: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Objectives: Little is known about the physician characteristics associated with appraisal skills of research evidence, especially the assessment of the validity of study methodology. This study aims to explore physician characteristics associated with proper assessment of overstated conclusions in research abstracts.

Design: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Effect of Recruitment Methods on Response Rate in a Web-Based Study for Primary Care Physicians: Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Low participation rates are one of the most serious disadvantages of Web-based studies. It is necessary to develop effective strategies to improve participation rates to obtain sufficient data.

Objective: The objective of this trial was to investigate the effect of emphasizing the incentive in the subject line of the invitation email and the day of the week of sending the invitation email on the participation rate in a Web-based trial.

Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: To investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians' evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) DESIGN: RCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis.

Participants: Volunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians.

Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation.

Objective: Abstracts of scientific reports are sometimes criticized for exaggerating significant results when compared to the corresponding full texts. Such abstracts can mislead the readers. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of overstatements in abstract conclusions in psychiatry trials.

Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation.

Introduction: Abstracts are the major and often the most important source of information for readers of the medical literature. However, there is mounting criticism that abstracts often exaggerate the positive findings and emphasise the beneficial effects of intervention beyond the actual findings mentioned in the corresponding full texts. In order to examine the magnitude of this problem, we will introduce a systematic approach to detect overstated abstracts and to quantify the extent of their prevalence in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of psychiatry.