Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Use and Misuse of the Medical Literature

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Forensic Aspects of Paediatric Fractures

Abstract

Academic publishing has, for centuries, been the gatekeeper of new knowledge. The rise of the internet over the past 20 years has led to an increased flow of information worldwide. This increased information flow has made it more and more difficult for practitioners to stay up on the knowledge explosion. In reality most busy practitioners read only the abstract of an article. If the paper is actually read, most professionals tend to read it as they would a novel, with little appreciation of some of the intentional structures of a well-crafted manuscript.

The purpose of this article is to provide a framework for critically evaluating articles and note some pitfalls that sophisticated readers should be aware of. The focus will be on the published literature as it applies to Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) as the content area to provide examples of how to read, in context, the medical literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Beninger PG, Beal LJ, Shumway SE (2016) Debasing the currency of science: the growing menace of predatory open access journals. J Shellfish Res 35:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fraser AG, Dunstan FD (2010) On the impossibility of being expert. BMJ 341:c6815

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Guyatt G, Cairns J, Churchill D, Cook D, Haynes B, Hirsh J, Irvine J, Levine M, Levine M, Nishikawa J, Sackett D, Brill-Edwards P, Gerstein H, Gibson J, Jaeschke R, Kerigan A, Neville A, Panju A, Detsky A, Enkin M, Frid P, Gerrity M, Laupacis A, Lawrence V, Menard J, Moyer V, Mulrow C, Links P, Oxman A, Sinclair J, Tugwell P (1992) Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 268:2420–2425

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guyatt G, Cairns J, Churchill D, Cook D, Haynes B, Hirsh J, Irvine J, Levine M, Levine M, Nishikawa J (1992) Evidence-based medicinee. JAMA 268:2420–2425

    Google Scholar 

  5. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Hayward R (2002) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  6. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  7. Greeley C (2015) Evidence-based radiology and child abuse. In: Kleinman PK (ed) Diagnostic imaging of child abuse. Cambridge University Press, pp 309–323

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sackett DL (1997) Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol 21:3–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wager E, Williams P (2011) Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics 37:567–570

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Byard RW (2016) The forensic implications of predatory publishing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 12:391–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, Ardern C, Balcom L, Barros T, Berger M, Ciro JB, Cugusi L, Donaldson MR, Egger M, Graham ID, Hodgkinson M, Khan KM, Mabizela M, Manca A, Milzow K, Mouton J, Muchenje M, Olijhoek T, Ommaya A, Patwardhan B, Poff D, Proulx L, Rodger M, Severin A, Strinzel M, Sylos-Labini M, Tamblyn R, van Niekerk M, Wicherts JM, Lalu MM (2019) Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 576:210–212

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Laine C, Winker MA (2017) Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 27:285–291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ferris LE, Winker MA (2017) Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 27:279–284

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wood KE, Krasowski MD (2020) Academic e-mail overload and the burden of “Academic Spam”. Acad Pathol 7:2374289519898858

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Butler D (2013) Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing. Nature 495:433–435

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beal LJ (2017) What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 27:273–278

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bohannon J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342:60–65

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. PubMed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Accessed 3 June 2021

  19. Think. Check. Submit. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/sample-page/check/. Accessed 5 July 2021

  20. Sorokowski P, Kulczycki E, Sorokowska A, Pisanski K (2017) Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature 543:481–483

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sokal AD (1996) Transgressing the boundaries: toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text 46(47):217–252

    Google Scholar 

  22. Soka IAD (1996) A physicist experiments with cultural studies. http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9605/sokal.html. Accessed 5 July 2021

  23. Seglen PO (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 314:498–502

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med 3:e291

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kurmis AP (2003) Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:2449–2454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wakefield AJ (1999) MMR vaccination and autism. Lancet 354:949–950

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dyer C (2010) Lancet retracts Wakefield’s MMR paper. BMJ 340:c696

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Watson JD, Crick FH (1974) Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. J.D. Watson and F.H.C. Crick. Published in Nature, number 4356 April 25, 1953. Nature 248:765

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99:178–182

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN (1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:237–240

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ray M (2016) An expanded approach to evaluating open access journals. J Scholar Publish 47:307–327

    Google Scholar 

  32. Greenhalgh T (1997) How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ 315:243–246

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Vandenbroucke JP (2001) In defense of case reports and case series. Ann Intern Med 134:330–334

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Love JC, Derrick SM, Wiersema JM, Pinto DC, Greeley C, Donaruma-Kwoh M, Bista B (2013) Novel classification system of rib fractures observed in infants. J Forensic Sci 58:330–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Piantadosi S, Byar DP, Green SB (1988) The ecological fallacy. Am J Epidemiol 127:893–904

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Price EA, Rush LR, Perper JA, Bell MD (2000) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation-related injuries and homicidal blunt abdominal trauma in children. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 21:307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Matshes EW, Evans RM, Pinckard JK, Joseph JT, Lew EO (2011) Shaken infants die of neck trauma, not of brain trauma. Acad For Path 1:82–91

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126:376–380

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Alper BS, Haynes RB (2016) EBHC pyramid 5.0 for accessing preappraised evidence and guidance. Evid Based Med 21:123–125

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG (2010) Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:619–625

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sica GT (2006) Bias in research studies. Radiology 238:780–789

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hahn U, Oaksford M (2007) The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychol Rev 114:704–732

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Casaulta C, Stirnimann A, Schoeni MH, Barben J (2008) Sweat test in patients with glucose-6-phosphate-1-dehydrogenase deficiency. Arch Dis Child 93:878–879

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hill AB (2015) The environment and disease: association or causation? 1965. J R Soc Med 108:32–37

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Willoughby RE Jr, Tieves KS, Hoffman GM, Ghanayem NS, Amlie-Lefond CM, Schwabe MJ, Chusid MJ, Rupprecht CE (2005) Survival after treatment of rabies with induction of coma. N Engl J Med 352:2508–2514

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Talisse R, Aikin SF (2006) Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation 20:345–352

    Google Scholar 

  47. Geddes JF, Hackshaw AK, Vowles GH, Nickols CD, Whitwell HL (2001) Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children. I. Patterns of brain damage. Brain 124:1290–1298

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Geddes JF, Vowles GH, Hackshaw AK, Nickols CD, Scott IS, Whitwell HL (2001) Neuropathology of inflicted head injury in children. II. Microscopic brain injury in infants. Brain 124:1299–1306

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Geddes JF, Tasker RR, Hackshaw CD, Adams GGW, Whitwell HL, Scheimberg I (2003) Dural haemorrhage in non-traumatic infant deaths: does it explain the bleeding in ‘shaken baby syndrome’? Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 29:14–22

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rafaat KT, Spear RM, Kuelbs C, Parsapour K, Peterson B (2008) Cranial computed tomographic findings in a large group of children with drowning: diagnostic, prognostic, and forensic implications. Pediatr Crit Care Med 9:567–572

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Geddes JF, Talbert DG (2006) Paroxysmal coughing, subdural and retinal bleeding: a computer modelling approach. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 32:625–634

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Barnes PD, Galaznik J, Gardner H, Shuman M (2010) Infant acute life-threatening event–dysphagic choking versus nonaccidental injury. Semin Pediatr Neurol 17:7–11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Greeley CS (2010) Letter to the editor – Infant acute life-threatening event – dysphagic chocking versus nonaccidental injury. Semin Pediatr Neurol 17:275–278

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Edwards GA (2015) Mimics of child abuse: Can choking explain abusive head trauma? J Forensic Legal Med 35:33–37

    Google Scholar 

  55. Donohoe M (2003) Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome: part I: literature review, 1966–1998. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 24:239–242

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Jayawant S, Rawlinson A, Gibbon F, Price J, Schulte J, Sharples P, Sibert JR, Kemp AM (1998) Subdural haemorrhages in infants: population based study. BMJ 317:1558–1561

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Maguire S, Pickerd N, Farewell D, Mann M, Tempest V, Kemp AM (2009) Which clinical features distinguish inflicted from non-inflicted brain injury? A systematic review. Arch Dis Child 94:860–867

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Public Health Paediatrics, Department of Paediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, TX, USA

    Christopher S. Greeley

Authors
  1. Christopher S. Greeley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher S. Greeley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Veilig Thuis Rotterdam Rijnmond, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Rob A.C. Bilo

  2. Paediatric Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Simon G. F. Robben

  3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rick R. van Rijn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Greeley, C.S. (2023). The Use and Misuse of the Medical Literature. In: Bilo, R.A., Robben, S.G.F., van Rijn, R.R. (eds) Forensic Aspects of Paediatric Fractures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12041-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12041-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-12040-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-12041-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation