The use of person-centered language in scientific research articles focusing on opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) affects approximately 1% of the population. Despite the prevalence of OUD, it remains a highly stigmatized disorder. Using person-centered language (PCL) - and thereby emphasizing the significance of the person rather than their diagnosis - is a potential strategy to reduce stigma in medical research related to addiction. Thus, we aimed to determine adherence to PCL in OUD-related publications according to the American Medical Association's guidelines. METHODS: We performed a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020 using the PubMed database. Articles were randomized and screened until we reached 300 articles that met inclusion criteria. Three-hundred articles were screened to meet this goal. Articles were then screened for non-PCL terms, determined a priori. RESULTS: The majority (240/300; 80 %) of OUD-related publications were not adherent to the AMA guidelines on PCL. Additionally, the use of emotional language (i.e. suffer, afflicted, etc.) was employed in 48 % (145/300) of articles. Stigmatizing terminology was found in 73 % (218/300) of the OUD related articles in this study. Our study demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between senior author affiliation and adherence to reporting guidelines (i.e., PRISMA, STROBE, etc.). CONCLUSION: A majority of OUD-related publications are not adherent to AMA guidelines on PCL. Language used in these publications is often repeated and replicated in medical education and clinical practice, which directly impacts patient-provider relationships. PCL-adherent language is a tool that both medical researchers and clinicians can use to combat stigma that individuals with OUD may experience.

An analysis of the rates of discontinuation and non-publication of colorectal cancer clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Non-publication and premature discontinuation for clinical trials pose an ethical dilemma for trial participants, patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as the general public as these studies receive significant public funding that may be further contributing to research waste. Here, we investigate the rate of trial discontinuation and non-publication among CRC trials using ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS: We performed an advanced search on ClinicalTrials.gov pertaining to the treatment of CRC using the keyword colorectal cancer. For each clinical trial, links to the publication provided by ClinicalTrials.gov were searched and verified to be correct. If a publication was unable to be found using the methods above, we attempted to contact the lead investigator via email for the reason for non-publication. RESULTS: Of the 123 (123/428, 28.7%) discontinued trials, a reason for discontinuation was provided for 57 (57/123, 46.3%) trials. Of the 305 (305/428, 71.3%) completed trials, 244 (244/305, 80.0%) had a verifiable publication, while 61 (61/305, 20.0%) did not publish their findings or were unable to be located. CONCLUSION: We found that more than one-quarter of trials were prematurely ended, and almost one-third of completed trials did not publish their findings. Subjecting trial participants to potentially harmful treatments and interventions that fail to complete or publish study findings have the potential to undermine the patient-provider relationship, as well as public confidence in government-sponsored clinical trials.