Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Clinical Trial Acronyms From Surgical Journals

Abstract

Introduction

Acronyms, the short form of a word or phrase, are commonly used in medical research to identify studies. However, their usage and quality assessment in surgical journals are unclear. This study aimed to determine the impact of identifying acronyms for clinical studies on the number of citations by comparing studies published in surgical and medical journals.

Methods

Articles were screened from five highly cited journals (Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, Journal of the American College of Surgeons, and New England Journal of Medicine, alphabetically). The correlation between acronym use and number of citations was analyzed. In addition, the characteristics and quality of acronyms, in terms of lettering and wording scores, used to identify studies were evaluated for acronymous trials using a developed and self-validated scoring tool.

Results

Of 291 eligible articles, 167 (57.4%) were acronymous studies. Although 70.5% (122/173) of articles in general medical journals used identifying acronyms, only 38.1% (45/118) used them in surgical journals (P < 0.001). The median number of citations was higher for acronymous studies (212 versus 53; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that acronymous studies had a 2.5-fold higher possibility of being a highly cited (odds ratio 2.514, P = 0.004). The average quality scores of the acronyms were similar for surgical and general medical journals (5.1 ± 1.7 versus 5.1 ± 1.6, P = 0.949). Surgical journals had lower lettering (2.20 ± 1.14 versus 3.02 ± 1.04, P < 0.001) but higher wording scores (2.89 ± 1.01 versus 2.09 ± 1.14, P < 0.001) than general medical journals.

Conclusions

Given the publicity effect of acronyms, a memorable acronym devised using the first or continuous letters for surgical studies may help recognize their clinical impact.