Talk:Clinical trial naming conventions
 | A fact from Clinical trial naming conventions appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 June 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that TORPEDO, BATMAN, CASANOVA, ATLANTIS, and ISIS are each names of clinical trials? "why is it called the TORPEDO study? In this case, it stands for “Thrombus Obliteration by Rapid Percutaneous Endovenous Intervention (PEVI) in Deep Venous Occlusion” and "Who wouldn’t want to tell one’s colleagues that you’re working on the BATMAN project? [...] the “Bisphosphonate and Anastrozole Trial – Bone Maintenance Algorithm Assessment” study."[1], "The CASANOVA study (Carotid Artery Stenosis with Asymptomatic Narrowing: Operation Versus Aspirin) is a multicenter trial..." [2], "ATLANTIS: a Phase III study of lurbinectedin/doxorubicin versus topotecan or cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine in patients with small-cell lung cancer who have failed one prior platinum-containing line"[3], Source: "Finally, the study name, ISIS, linked the trial series to an internationally recognized name (that of the ancient Egyptian goddess of nature)..."[4]
ALT1:... that the British Medical Journal published an article about how contrived clinical trial acronyms are?Source: "Objectives To describe the development of acronym use across five major medical specialties and to evaluate the technical and aesthetic quality of the acronyms." "The evaluation consisted of both positive (BEAUTY, Boosting Elegant Acronyms Using a Tally Yardstick) and negative (CHEATING, obsCure and awkHward usE of lettArs Trying to spell somethING) criteria (box). We used a two step Delphi method to agree on these criteria. The final score assigned to each acronym was obtained by adding the BEAUTY and CHEATING score." [5]ALT2:... that clinical trial acronyms are notoriously mismatched from the name of the study?Source: "The use of acronyms in health sciences has been subject to intense debate. Authors have advocated against such use as they claim it has turned into MMMMM—a major malady of modern medical miscommunication—and asserted that positive sounding acronyms are misused in clinical trials with negative outcomes. It has been suggested that editors should insist on eliminating the use of positive sounding acronyms or even bring a HALT (help acronyms leave (medical) trials) to the use of acronyms altogether. This heated controversy seems to be based on opinion rather than founded on rigorous scientific research. Few quantitative studies of this important topic exist, and to our knowledge studies on the technical and aesthetic quality of acronyms are virtually absent. We describe the extent and quality of acronym use within different medical specialties." [6]ALT3: ... that the British Medical Journal published an article ranking clinical trial acronyms based on how little sense they make?Source: "Objectives To describe the development of acronym use across five major medical specialties and to evaluate the technical and aesthetic quality of the acronyms." "The evaluation consisted of both positive (BEAUTY, Boosting Elegant Acronyms Using a Tally Yardstick) and negative (CHEATING, obsCure and awkHward usE of lettArs Trying to spell somethING) criteria (box). We used a two step Delphi method to agree on these criteria. The final score assigned to each acronym was obtained by adding the BEAUTY and CHEATING score." [7]
Created by Natureium (talk). Self-nominated at 17:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- Is this one of your first five nominations?
Overall: 
I've crossed out all the hooks besides ALT0 because I am not sure they are hooky enough. Also, "notoriously" should not be in WP voice. (The article is OK as it is attributed). buidhe 15:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- buidhe, I've checked, and I only see three prior DYK credits. If that was the only issue holding up this review, it should be all set. If there's more, please let the nominator know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
