Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Does anybody read "evidence-based" articles?

Yoon K Loke1, Sheena Derry

  • 1Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, United Kingdom. yoon.loke@clinpharm.ox.ac.uk

BMC Medical Research Methodology
|August 2, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Midodrine hydrochloride as a treatment for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology·2026
Same author

Investigating the impact of problematic evidence on clinical practice guidelines and associated patient outcomes (VITALITY Study II): protocol.

BMJ open·2026
Same author

Hospitalizations During the 30-Day Period Preceding an Admission with Aortic Dissection.

European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery·2026
Same author

Ivabradine as a Treatment for Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology·2025
Same author

Hospitalisations during the 30-day period preceding admissions with cardiac arrest.

Acta cardiologica·2025
Same author

The evidence for treatments for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome: a systematic review of randomized trials.

Trends in cardiovascular medicine·2025
Same journal

Methods for incorporating test result information within the high-dimensional propensity score framework: application in UK electronic health record data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Sparse multi-way DMDC for longitudinal classification in high dimension low sample size data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Tree-based exploratory identification of predictive biomarkers in non-randomized data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Comparative evaluation of interrupted time series analytical methods for healthcare quality improvement research: a Monte Carlo simulation study.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Methodological advances in claims-based dementia algorithms: integrating medication and clinical data for medicare populations.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

An interpretable XGboost algorithm for predicting 30-day mortality in acute pancreatitis using routine biomarkers.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
See all related articles

Narrative reviews and editorials are more popular than primary research papers online. Authors and editors should make research articles more appealing to readers.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Journal Publishing
  • Scientific Communication
  • Readership Analytics

Background:

  • The electronic British Medical Journal (eBMJ) tracks article views within a week of publication.
  • A study compared the popularity of primary research, evidence-based papers, narrative reviews, and editorials.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the relative readership of different article types published in the eBMJ.
  • To assess the impact of article format on online engagement.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of article view counts ('hits') for four categories: Editorials, Clinical Reviews (narrative), Education and Debate, and Papers (original research/systematic reviews).
  • Data collected for articles published in 2001.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Clinical Reviews (narrative reviews) were most viewed (avg. 4148 hits/article).
  • Papers (original research/systematic reviews) were less popular (avg. 1168 hits/article).
  • Editorials (avg. 2537 hits/article) were viewed more frequently than Papers.

Conclusions:

  • Narrative reviews and editorials attract more readers than primary research or systematic reviews in the initial week post-publication.
  • Authors and editors need to enhance the readability and appeal of research articles and systematic reviews.
  • Strategies may include simpler language and innovative web features to present complex data.