SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Anecdotes as Topic”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

PubMed2000

An old age psychiatrist at the Department of Health.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Misuse of anecdotes in primatology: lessons from citation analysis.

This study analyzes the accuracy of anecdotes cited in behavioral primatology publications. Anecdotes (n=1 cases) recounting tool use were sought in the four main primatological journals. Citations of anecdotes in the scientific literature that met three criteria were systematically coded for recognition and accuracy. The results showed that 60% of the time, authors who cited anecdotes did not explicitly acknowledge them as such. To a lesser extent, the citations exaggerated the frequency of anecdotal events or misrepresented their status. For tool use specifically, the actor was misreported more often than the tool or its target. Multiple citations were incorrect more often than single citations. Overall, it seems that citation of anecdotes is problematic and may have far-reaching implications in terms of misleading overgeneralizations. Primatologists should take care in citing singular or rare events.

Anecdotes as Topic↗

PubMed2006

Patient treatment preferences in localized prostate carcinoma: The influence of emotion, misconception, and anecdote.

BACKGROUND: Multiple therapeutic options exist for localized prostate carcinoma, without conclusive evidence to guide the choice of treatment. Thus, treatment should reflect trade-offs between the probability of curing disease and the desire to avoid treatment-associated side effects. Factors that actually influence patient treatment preferences are poorly understood. METHODS: We reviewed medical records and carried out in-depth, semistructured interviews of 20 men with newly-diagnosed, clinically-localized prostate carcinoma in a Veterans Affairs Hospital following their first consultations with urologists and before treatments were initiated. Six to eight months after treatment, we carried out follow-up interviews. Interviews explored beliefs and attitudes about prostate cancer and treatment options, emotional reactions to the diagnosis, treatment preferences, information sources, and perceptions of interactions with urologists. RESULTS: Patient treatment preferences were not based on careful assessments of numerical risks for various clinical outcomes. Instead, feelings of fear and uncertainty contributed to a desire for rapid treatment, and specific preferences were profoundly influenced by misconceptions, especially about prostatectomy, and by anecdotes about the experiences of others with cancer. Few patients wanted to seek second opinions. Most patients received treatments that matched their initial preferences. Afterwards, they justified their choices in terms of the same misconceptions and anecdotal influences invoked during treatment deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: For men with localized prostate carcinoma, the treatment decision-making process would benefit from interventions that moderate feelings of fear and a desire for rapid treatment, dispel common and powerful misconceptions about prostate cancer and its therapies, and help patients avoid over-reliance on anecdotes.

Aged↗

PubMed1988