Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current Issue
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Snippets
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Study Letters
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guideline-IADVL
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
Therapy Letters
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Miscellaneous Letter
88 (
6
); 849-850
doi:
10.25259/IJDVL_365_2022
pmid:
36331848

Skirting in abstracts of dermatology articles: A preliminary study

Department of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Science, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
Corresponding author: Dr. Atreyo Chakraborty, Address 26 C Selimpore Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata 700031, West Bengal, India. chakraborty.atreyo@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Chakraborty A. Skirting in abstracts of dermatology articles: A preliminary study. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2022;88:849-50.

Sir,

Skirting is a term often used in scientific literature to refer to the tendency of the authors to avoid liability by using indirect words such as “can,” “may” etc in place of terms that are more definitive.1 For example, instead of saying “hepatoxicity is associated with itraconazole,” by resorting to skirting one says “hepatotoxicity may be associated with itraconazole.” While the second sentence is probably safer from the point of view of the speaker in the sense that it exonerates him from any further responsibility, excessive use of this literary device often confuses the reader and dilutes the importance of the research findings. However, very little, if any, research has been done on the prevalence of skirting in the dermatology literature.2

Excessive skirting was defined as the occurrence of the words “can” or “may” three or more times individually or more than five times taken together. Moderate skirting was defined as the occurrence of “can” or “may” two to three times individually or four to five times taken together. The past tenses of these words “could” or “might” were not taken into account since they might reflect genuine usage in the context of a study. Since many randomised control trials and other observational studies are often reported in past tenses, these verbs are often used in a genuine context and do not represent skirting. One might say, “study participants could withdraw from the study if they did not agree to participate further in the course” or “the participants could cross over to either arm of the study”. Since such usages do not come under the ambit of skirting, the past tenses have been omitted from this study.

The aim of this study was to find out the prevalence of skirting in the dermatology literature. All types of articles enlisted in PubMed for which full abstracts are available free of cost and satisfying the search strategy were included. Only English language abstracts were considered. A PubMed search was conducted using the keywords “itraconazole” and “tinea.” Filters were applied for the English language search.

The search returned 997 results. Only those articles for which abstracts were available free of cost and in the English language were further taken into consideration. A total of 753 abstracts were available. After duplicate removal and removal of unrelated articles, only 25 articles were deemed fit. Their abstracts were thus screened for skirting.

The results were analysed using Microsoft Excel version XP, and statistical tests were conducted using SPSS 7. The chi-square test was used to evaluate significance, with a cut-off P < 0.05 taken as a significant level.

The study included 14 review articles (including systematic reviews), seven original articles, three case reports and one randomised control trial. Excessive skirting was seen in five out of 25 articles, giving a rate of 20%. Moderate skirting was seen in a further three articles, that is, in 12%. Together, some degree of skirting was seen in 32% while the remaining 68% did not show skirting behaviour.

Of the articles showing excessive skirting, all five were review articles while among those showing moderate skirting, all three were review articles. Interestingly, none of the case reports, randomised control trials or observational studies did show any evidence of skirting.

Skirting leads to some degree of confusion and also dilutes the importance of research findings. While a certain degree of skirting is inevitable, given the rise of litigations in the current scenario, efforts must be made to avoid skirting, to the extent possible. This is especially true for review articles and guidelines, where the use of “can,” “may,” etc. might lead to a considerable degree of confusion. A threshold regarding the use of “can” or “may” has been defined in the study since one or two such instances of can or may usually be unavoidable and do not represent skirting.

One might argue that the conclusions are always based on results derived from Fisherian and sometimes, Bayesian statistics. Whether the hypotheses are rejected or not, based upon probabilistic assumptions, “can” and “may” in fact, maybe more accurate descriptors than absolute statements. However, as nearly all of the present-day evidence-based medicine is based on Bayesian statistics, one will not be able to make any definitive conclusion and the whole process of therapy will be stalled if one applies statistical principles too rigidly. For example, when one gets a hemoglobin level of seven g/dL in a patient, one immediately begins therapy with blood transfusion or intravenous iron as deemed fit. One fully knows that there is still a five percent chance that the hemoglobin level is normal but the test result is erroneous (since most lab values are normally distributed and therefore based on 95% confidence intervals; which means, for any value, no matter how carefully a test is done, there is a five percent chance of error. If one implements Bayesian statistics too rigidly and gets entangled in a meshwork of “can” and “may” one will never be able to deliver care.

Another example would be finding a haemorrhage in the computed tomography scan of patients who has suddenly lost consciousness due to head trauma. Bayesian statistics would still tell us that there is a five percent chance that the blood seen in a computed tomography scan is not actual blood, but a false positive result. Yet medically everyone knows such patients need immediate treatment and one usually progresses towards key hole evacuation of haemorrhage.

The crux is that such excessive use of “can” and “may” by a too rigid interpretation of Bayesian statistics should be discouraged since that leads us nowhere–we do not expect authors to completely avoid “can” or “may”, but rather to minimise their usage, beyond a certain threshold, since that leads to considerable confusion in decision making. More concrete statements wherever possible is to be encouraged. For example, “tranexamic acid can improve melasma” is better re-written as “tranexamic acid is often useful in improving melasma”.

No previous study on skirting could be found in the dermatologic literature.

A possible solution to the use of skirting is to declare at the start of the article or to put a disclaimer at the end that biological diversity implies that exceptions always exist and that the authors should not be held liable for any harm arising out of anything contained within the article.

Skirting was excessively prevalent in 20% of the articles while moderate skirting was prevalent in 12% of the articles. Most of the skirting occurred in the case of review articles. More large-scale studies are needed to find out the exact prevalence of such phenomenon in the dermatology literature.

Declaration of patient consent

Patient’s consent not required as there are no patients in this study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , , . What the IJDVL expects from authors: Better writing. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2021;87:151-3.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. . Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it? Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011;77:123-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
2,019

PDF downloads
106
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections