The term ‘Pilot Study’ is misused in veterinary medicine: a critical assessment
Authors commonly use the term ‘Pilot Study’ in the veterinary literature. The term has a specific definition in medical literature, but is not defined in veterinary literature. Therefore, we sought to examine the frequency of the use of the term and the characteristics of studies using the term in t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Veterinary record 2020-01, Vol.186 (2), p.65-65 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 65 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 65 |
| container_title | Veterinary record |
| container_volume | 186 |
| creator | Rishniw, Mark White, Maurice Edward |
| description | Authors commonly use the term ‘Pilot Study’ in the veterinary literature. The term has a specific definition in medical literature, but is not defined in veterinary literature. Therefore, we sought to examine the frequency of the use of the term and the characteristics of studies using the term in the article title, and derive the intended meaning of the term. We identified all articles in veterinary literature using the term in the article title between 2008 and 2017. We then examined specific characteristics of articles published between 2008 and 2012. We found use of the term is increasing (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/vr.105377 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2336981042</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2336981042</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3001-cd69f5fa3a60ffd71865dc47574da6c65a8e709b9174ba93449dd9b4f1977c5d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLlOAzEQhi0EgnAUvACyBAUUCb7Wjukg4pKQQBBoV17bKxztEezdoHR5DHg9ngRHCxRIUM0U3_wz8wGwi9EAY8qPZ36AUUKFWAE9ghjpCy7QKuihZc8kQhtgM4QJQkQmlKyDDYoZEQzxHngYP1vYWF_Cj8XbnSvqBj40rZl_LN6hC7B0oQ3WQFfBmY2Yq5Sfw9Iap11lT6CC2rvGaVVAFYINobRVsw3WclUEu_NVt8Djxfl4dNW_ub28Hp3e9DOKEO5rw2We5IoqjvLcCDzkidFMJIIZxTVP1NAKJDOJBcuUpIxJY2TGciyF0ImhW-Cwy536-qW1oUnjudoWhaps3YaUUMrlEEcJEd3_hU7q1lfxukixISFJVBapo47Svg7B2zydelfGj1OM0qXpdObTznRk974S2yz6-CG_1UaAdMCrK-z876T06Xx8f3ax7HEcOuiGsnLyz_JP-hCUaQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2348225767</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The term ‘Pilot Study’ is misused in veterinary medicine: a critical assessment</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rishniw, Mark ; White, Maurice Edward</creator><creatorcontrib>Rishniw, Mark ; White, Maurice Edward</creatorcontrib><description>Authors commonly use the term ‘Pilot Study’ in the veterinary literature. The term has a specific definition in medical literature, but is not defined in veterinary literature. Therefore, we sought to examine the frequency of the use of the term and the characteristics of studies using the term in the article title, and derive the intended meaning of the term. We identified all articles in veterinary literature using the term in the article title between 2008 and 2017. We then examined specific characteristics of articles published between 2008 and 2012. We found use of the term is increasing (P<0.0001). Of articles using the term between 2008 and 2012, only 20 per cent led to a larger, more comprehensive verifying study. Most garnered few citations, but 75 per cent were cited in review articles. Pilot studies had a median sample size of 10 subjects. We found comparable studies for each pilot study that did not incorporate the term into their titles. None of the authors of any of the pilot studies defined the term or explained why their study was termed a ‘pilot study’. Journals and authors used the term haphazardly. Our findings indicate that the term ‘Pilot Study’ is meaningless because it meets no specific, consistently adhered-to criteria. We believe that authors use the term as a means of ‘Deficiency signaling’ to editors, reviewers and readers. We recommend that authors and journals abandon the term in veterinary literature because it serves no purpose, is not used consistently and might harm veterinary medicine.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0042-4900</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2042-7670</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/vr.105377</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31427406</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Limited</publisher><subject>Citations ; Diagnostic tests ; exploratory ; Hypotheses ; Hypothesis testing ; Pilot projects ; preliminary ; sample size ; Studies ; study power ; Veterinary medicine</subject><ispartof>Veterinary record, 2020-01, Vol.186 (2), p.65-65</ispartof><rights>British Veterinary Association 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><rights>British Veterinary Association 2020</rights><rights>2020 British Veterinary Association 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3001-cd69f5fa3a60ffd71865dc47574da6c65a8e709b9174ba93449dd9b4f1977c5d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3001-cd69f5fa3a60ffd71865dc47574da6c65a8e709b9174ba93449dd9b4f1977c5d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0477-1780</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1136%2Fvr.105377$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1136%2Fvr.105377$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,27911,27912,45561,45562</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31427406$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rishniw, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Maurice Edward</creatorcontrib><title>The term ‘Pilot Study’ is misused in veterinary medicine: a critical assessment</title><title>Veterinary record</title><addtitle>Vet Rec</addtitle><description>Authors commonly use the term ‘Pilot Study’ in the veterinary literature. The term has a specific definition in medical literature, but is not defined in veterinary literature. Therefore, we sought to examine the frequency of the use of the term and the characteristics of studies using the term in the article title, and derive the intended meaning of the term. We identified all articles in veterinary literature using the term in the article title between 2008 and 2017. We then examined specific characteristics of articles published between 2008 and 2012. We found use of the term is increasing (P<0.0001). Of articles using the term between 2008 and 2012, only 20 per cent led to a larger, more comprehensive verifying study. Most garnered few citations, but 75 per cent were cited in review articles. Pilot studies had a median sample size of 10 subjects. We found comparable studies for each pilot study that did not incorporate the term into their titles. None of the authors of any of the pilot studies defined the term or explained why their study was termed a ‘pilot study’. Journals and authors used the term haphazardly. Our findings indicate that the term ‘Pilot Study’ is meaningless because it meets no specific, consistently adhered-to criteria. We believe that authors use the term as a means of ‘Deficiency signaling’ to editors, reviewers and readers. We recommend that authors and journals abandon the term in veterinary literature because it serves no purpose, is not used consistently and might harm veterinary medicine.</description><subject>Citations</subject><subject>Diagnostic tests</subject><subject>exploratory</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Hypothesis testing</subject><subject>Pilot projects</subject><subject>preliminary</subject><subject>sample size</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>study power</subject><subject>Veterinary medicine</subject><issn>0042-4900</issn><issn>2042-7670</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kLlOAzEQhi0EgnAUvACyBAUUCb7Wjukg4pKQQBBoV17bKxztEezdoHR5DHg9ngRHCxRIUM0U3_wz8wGwi9EAY8qPZ36AUUKFWAE9ghjpCy7QKuihZc8kQhtgM4QJQkQmlKyDDYoZEQzxHngYP1vYWF_Cj8XbnSvqBj40rZl_LN6hC7B0oQ3WQFfBmY2Yq5Sfw9Iap11lT6CC2rvGaVVAFYINobRVsw3WclUEu_NVt8Djxfl4dNW_ub28Hp3e9DOKEO5rw2We5IoqjvLcCDzkidFMJIIZxTVP1NAKJDOJBcuUpIxJY2TGciyF0ImhW-Cwy536-qW1oUnjudoWhaps3YaUUMrlEEcJEd3_hU7q1lfxukixISFJVBapo47Svg7B2zydelfGj1OM0qXpdObTznRk974S2yz6-CG_1UaAdMCrK-z876T06Xx8f3ax7HEcOuiGsnLyz_JP-hCUaQ</recordid><startdate>20200118</startdate><enddate>20200118</enddate><creator>Rishniw, Mark</creator><creator>White, Maurice Edward</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Limited</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0477-1780</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200118</creationdate><title>The term ‘Pilot Study’ is misused in veterinary medicine: a critical assessment</title><author>Rishniw, Mark ; White, Maurice Edward</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b3001-cd69f5fa3a60ffd71865dc47574da6c65a8e709b9174ba93449dd9b4f1977c5d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Citations</topic><topic>Diagnostic tests</topic><topic>exploratory</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Hypothesis testing</topic><topic>Pilot projects</topic><topic>preliminary</topic><topic>sample size</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>study power</topic><topic>Veterinary medicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rishniw, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>White, Maurice Edward</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary record</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rishniw, Mark</au><au>White, Maurice Edward</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The term ‘Pilot Study’ is misused in veterinary medicine: a critical assessment</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary record</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Rec</addtitle><date>2020-01-18</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>186</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>65</spage><epage>65</epage><pages>65-65</pages><issn>0042-4900</issn><eissn>2042-7670</eissn><abstract>Authors commonly use the term ‘Pilot Study’ in the veterinary literature. The term has a specific definition in medical literature, but is not defined in veterinary literature. Therefore, we sought to examine the frequency of the use of the term and the characteristics of studies using the term in the article title, and derive the intended meaning of the term. We identified all articles in veterinary literature using the term in the article title between 2008 and 2017. We then examined specific characteristics of articles published between 2008 and 2012. We found use of the term is increasing (P<0.0001). Of articles using the term between 2008 and 2012, only 20 per cent led to a larger, more comprehensive verifying study. Most garnered few citations, but 75 per cent were cited in review articles. Pilot studies had a median sample size of 10 subjects. We found comparable studies for each pilot study that did not incorporate the term into their titles. None of the authors of any of the pilot studies defined the term or explained why their study was termed a ‘pilot study’. Journals and authors used the term haphazardly. Our findings indicate that the term ‘Pilot Study’ is meaningless because it meets no specific, consistently adhered-to criteria. We believe that authors use the term as a means of ‘Deficiency signaling’ to editors, reviewers and readers. We recommend that authors and journals abandon the term in veterinary literature because it serves no purpose, is not used consistently and might harm veterinary medicine.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Limited</pub><pmid>31427406</pmid><doi>10.1136/vr.105377</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0477-1780</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0042-4900 |
| ispartof | Veterinary record, 2020-01, Vol.186 (2), p.65-65 |
| issn | 0042-4900 2042-7670 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2336981042 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Citations Diagnostic tests exploratory Hypotheses Hypothesis testing Pilot projects preliminary sample size Studies study power Veterinary medicine |
| title | The term ‘Pilot Study’ is misused in veterinary medicine: a critical assessment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T22%3A07%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20term%20%E2%80%98Pilot%20Study%E2%80%99%20is%20misused%20in%20veterinary%20medicine:%20a%20critical%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20record&rft.au=Rishniw,%20Mark&rft.date=2020-01-18&rft.volume=186&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=65&rft.epage=65&rft.pages=65-65&rft.issn=0042-4900&rft.eissn=2042-7670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/vr.105377&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2336981042%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2348225767&rft_id=info:pmid/31427406&rfr_iscdi=true |