Emotional tones in scientific writing: comparison of commercially funded studies and non-commercially funded orthopedic studies.

Background and purpose - There is ongoing debate as to whether commercial funding influences reporting of medical studies. We asked: Is there a difference in reported tones between abstracts, introductions, and discussions of orthopedic journal studies that were commercially funded and those that were not commercially funded?Methods - We conducted a systematic PubMed search to identify commercially funded studies published in 20 orthopedic journals between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2019. We identified commercial funding of studies by including in our search the names of 10 medical device companies with the largest revenue in 2019. Commercial funding was designated when either the study or 1 or more of the authors received funding from a medical device company directly related to the content of the study. We matched 138 commercially funded articles 1 to 1 with 138 non-commercially funded articles with the same study design, published in the same journal, within a time range of 5 years. The IBM Watson Tone Analyzer was used to determine emotional tones (anger, fear, joy, and sadness) and language style (analytical, confident, and tentative).Results - For abstract and introduction sections, we found no differences in reported tones between commercially funded and non-commercially funded studies. Fear tones (non-commercially funded studies 5.1%, commercially funded studies 0.7%, p = 0.04), and analytical tones (non-commercially funded studies 95%, commercially funded studies 88%, p = 0.03) were more common in discussions of studies that were not commercially funded.Interpretation - Commercially funded studies have comparable tones to non-commercially funded studies in the abstract and introduction. In contrast, the discussion of non-commercially funded studies demonstrated more fear and analytical tones, suggesting them to be more tentative, accepting of uncertainty, and dispassionate. As text analysis tools become more sophisticated and mainstream, it might help to discern commercial bias in scientific reports.

Work disability and its determinants in patients with pituitary tumor-related disease.

INTRODUCTION: Pituitary tumors may have a considerable impact on patients' functional status, including paid employment, yet research in this area is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To describe work disability and its determinants in patients treated for a pituitary tumor. METHODS: Cross-sectional study including patients treated for a pituitary tumor in the working age (18-65 years), who completed five validated questionnaires assessing work disability [Short Form-Health and Labour Questionnaire, Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ)], health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and utility (Short Form-36, EuroQoL) and disease burden (Leiden Bother and Needs Questionnaire-Pituitary). Additional data were extracted from the medical records (age, gender, tumor type, treatment, date of diagnosis) and self-reports (marital status, education, endocrine status). Associations of disease-specific and sociodemographic characteristics, HRQoL, and disease burden with (not) having a paid job were examined through multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 241 patients (61% female, median age 53 years, median time since diagnosis 11 years), of whom 68 (28%) were without a paid job. Patients who had acromegaly, Cushing's disease, (pan)hypopituitarism, radiotherapy, were single, less educated, lower HRQoL, and increased disease burden were more often without a paid job (p < 0.05). Among those with paid jobs, 41% reported health-related absenteeism in the previous year. The three work incapacitating problems reported by the largest proportion of patients were within the mental and social domain (WRFQ). CONCLUSION: Work disability among patients treated for a pituitary tumor is substantial. As impact on social functioning is high, it is strongly advised to incorporate work disability during clinical guidance of patients.

Healthcare utilization and costs among patients with non-functioning pituitary adenomas.

PURPOSE: Non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPA) have a substantial impact on patients' health status, yet research on the extent of healthcare utilization and costs among these patients is scarce. The objective was to determine healthcare usage, associated costs, and their determinants among patients treated for an NFPA. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 167 patients treated for an NFPA completed four validated questionnaires. Annual healthcare utilization and associated costs were assessed through the medical consumption questionnaire (MTA iMCQ). In addition, the Leiden Bother and Needs Questionnaire for pituitary patients (LBNQ-Pituitary), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and EuroQol (EQ-5D) were administered. Furthermore, age, sex, endocrine status, treatment, and duration of follow-up were extracted from the medical records. Associations were analyzed using logistic/linear regression. RESULTS: Annual healthcare utilization included: consultation of an endocrinologist (95% of patients), neurosurgeon (14%), and/or ophthalmologist (58%). Fourteen percent of patients had ≥1 hospitalization(s) and 11% ≥1 emergency room visit(s). Mean overall annual healthcare costs were € 3040 (SD 6498), highest expenditures included medication (31%), inpatient care (28%), and specialist care (17%). Factors associated with higher healthcare utilization and costs were greater self-perceived disease bother and need for support, worse mental and physical health status, younger age, and living alone. CONCLUSION: Healthcare usage and costs among patients treated for an NFPA are substantial and were associated with self-perceived health status, disease bother, and healthcare needs rather than endocrine status, treatment, or duration of follow-up. These findings suggest that targeted interventions addressing disease bother and unmet needs in the chronic phase are needed.