The Importance of Matching Language to Type of Evidence: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Reporting Outcomes Data

Abstract

Results from different types of clinical research studies provide different types of evidence for evaluating the effects of a new drug or intervention. For this reason, it is important to recognize this phenomenon during reporting and to choose appropriate language to match the type of study that was done, because this can become critical to the interpretation and application of the results in clinical practice. In this article, we aim to highlight this issue through a series of examples and provide some guidance on what the appropriate language for different types of studies should be. Background on Types of StudiesWhen investigating the effects of a novel intervention on a patient population, a spectrum of different study designs exists and can be chosen by the investigator, including but not limited to a (1) purely retrospective case study; (2) retrospective case-control study; (3) prospective cohort study (eg, a registry); and (4) prospective, placebocontrolled, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Each of these study designs and analytic techniques has advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of study type can be a complex function of many considerations, such as the scientific hypothesis of interest, patient population, ethical implications, and resources available. These different studies, therefore, are valuable and contribute important results to clinical practice.

Statement on Matching Language to the Type of Evidence Used in Describing Outcomes Data

“…As illustrated in a series of examples provided in a separate review , inappropriate word choice to describe results can lead to scientific inaccuracy. Therefore, the editors of the HEART Group (representing the world's cardiovascular journals) recommend that all investigators and editors carefully select language to “match” the type of study conducted, without overstating findings or drawing erroneous conclusions about causality when they cannot be established.…”

Statement on matching language to the type of evidence used in describing outcomes data

“…As illustrated in a series of examples provided in a separate review [1], inappropriate choice of words to describe results can lead to scientific inaccuracy. Therefore, the editors of the HEART Group (representing the world's cardiovascular journals) recommend that all investigators and editors carefully select language to 'match' the type of study conducted, without overstating findings or drawing erroneous conclusions about causality when they cannot be established.…”

Statement on Matching Language to the Type of Evidence Used in Describing Outcomes Data

“…As illustrated in a series of examples provided in a separate review [1], inappropriate word choice to describe results can lead to scientific inaccuracy. Therefore, the editors of the HEART Group (representing the world’s cardiovascular journals) recommend that all investigators and editors carefully select language to ‘match’ the type of study conducted, without overstating findings or drawing erroneous conclusions about causality when they cannot be established.…”