Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Outcome switching

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Rjjiii talk 01:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Outcome switching

(
)

Created by Femke (talk). Self-nominated at 21:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Outcome switching; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Starting this review. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2024 (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: Done.

Overall: Article is new. At ~1600 words it just about meets the eligibility requirements. Earwig could not determine any copyvio concerns because of the nature of the cites (i.e. journals). However, I do not think there are any copyvio concerns based on some spot checks where I could access content. QPQ done. I have some thoughts on the hook and the lede. Will add them separately. Ktin (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hook and interestingness

  • There is a statement in the article, "Changes in primary outcome metrics are present in nearly one in three studies". I am thinking we could weave that in to create a punchy hook. e.g. "Per a study, one in three studies [clinical trials] engaged in outcome switching?"

Article structure

  • Can we consider the structuring the article into sections? This might allow us to expand the article. I was thinking of the below structure:
    • 1. Background -- What is outcome switching? When was the term coined? Do we have an instance of the first usage of the term?
    • 2. Prevalence -- studies on how rampant this practice is?
    • 3. Impacts -- negative effects stemming from outcome switching
    • 4. Preventative actions (should think of a better term for this section) -- what are prominent journals / academic bodies doing about this practice?
    • 5. Select examples (should think of a better term for this section) -- any popular studies that have been called out for outcome switching?

Other edits

  • Consider rephrasing "Changes in primary outcome metrics are present in nearly one in three studies" --> "Per a study by <researchers at x>, changes in primary outcome metrics are present in nearly one in three studies"
    • Per WP:MEDSAY, a meta-analysis should not have that type of wording. Even for primary sources, that type of wording is overly verbose and discouraged. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Consider a similar rephrasing for the sentence where we say that outcome switching in oncology "is more common in studies with a male first author, and in studies funded by non-profits."

Handing this back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:Ktin. I'm quite new to DYK. While I don't doubt your suggestions will improve the article, I'm wondering if I need to make them before this article can be approved. For GA nominations, it's considered good practice to note possible improvements as optional if they do not relate to the GA criteria. It may be that I'm not understanding the DYK criteria sufficiently, and that subsections are actually expected. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@Femke: I do not call myself a veteran either, but, my understanding is working on feedback like the one that I have provided is up to you. It is only egregious items that prevent the article from being promoted to mainpage (and the hook approved). That said, I have seen folks being particular about "interestingness" however defined that term may be. So, consider revising the hook per my note above. Re: the WP:MEDSAY comment I am super surprised. But, I will admit I am not too familiar with medical projects and articles. Your call on that one. Ktin (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The more general policy is WP:Wikivoice (Avoid stating facts as opinions): it's usually preferable to find high-quality secondary sources that contain facts over more subjective findings, so that you can write text in Wikivoice. So wording like The New York Times reported on day X that Y, is usually unnecessary, as we expect the NYT to have done their due diligence. For opinions or minority viewpoints, in-text attribution is the way to go. I've done a minor expansion of the article, including 2 section. I'll come back on the hook-specific points. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree. I was thinking of Wikivoice as well. My personal take is that one does not need to say "Per the NYT, ... " for the sun rises in the east kind of statements. However, when stating something like a study, I would still say "Per the NYT, 74% of all spam calls originate from a land-line number in <insert any country / geographical region here>". In the case of this article, both the 1 out of 3 studies being guilty of outcome switching, and outcome switching being more likely when the first author is a male or funded by a non-profit statements sounded like something we should directly attribute to the folks performing the study rather than writing in Wikivoice. Ktin (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I've changed the oncology study sentence, where I do take your point. The the other sentence is based on a meta-analysis, rather than on a single study. I can take more information out of that meta-analysis, but attributing it would exaggerate the uncertainty imo. I've switched the first sentence back to is per WP:REFER. In terms of the structure, I can't find who first coined the term, and the term is not particularly distinctive, so I can't imagine it was properly "coined".
In terms of the hooks, I find it difficult to say something about outcome switching, while also explaining what it is or does. Only detailing the prevalence in the hook would not be that elucidating to readers, so see my . —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Almost there. To mark the hook approved, I am assuming this is the relevant snippet from the journal Among the included studies, the median number of trials assessed for outcome discrepancies was 65 (interquartile range [IQR] 25–110), and the median proportion of studies for which a discrepancy was identified between the registered and published primary outcome was 31 %, though this varied substantially across the included studies (range 0 % [0/66] to 100 % [1/1], IQR 17–45 %; Fig. 2).. Please confirm. Ktin (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Marking hook approved. Btw, I see you are an admin and have quite a few rights. You should also get the "auto patrolled" right if you so want to. This article is still showing unreviewed. Irrespective, I think we are good here. Ktin (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I can self-assign autopatrolled, and have contemplating doing that now that I've started 10 articles. However, normally, we give out autopatrolled at 25 articles created, most of which are problem-free. I feel I need to figure out what categories are all about before I self-assign, as I've never had much interest in that aspect of article writing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • As a process note, I have now reviewed the entry for NPP and was about to leave a message with the same idea about autopatrol, but I defer to you Femke! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Outcome_switching&oldid=1212889450"