© 2002 American Thoracic Society
On the abuse of acronymsTo the Editor:The article by Cracowski and colleagues (1) presents valuable information. However, the abuse of acronyms (AOA) in this article makes it more difficult to read than it need be. This article used 27 different acronyms a total of 199 times, a mean of 6.6 acronyms per paragraph (range, 1 to 18). This practice culminates in the conclusion that "In a population of patients ... suspected of having OSAHS or UARS, OH represented the prominent type of ONAREs when RERAs were limited to 5%" (1). Although each acronym is defined when introduced, few readers of this article will manage to remember the meaning of each while following the logic of the authors' discussion. To do so would require immediate comprehension of 27 new terms, each used repeatedly but defined only once before its first use in a detailed, complex argument. Counterproductive in its attempt to hasten reading, the profusion of medical acronyms is not limited to this article. Other readers have commented on acronym abuse in the medical literature (2–5). I respectfully suggest that authors minimize their use of acronyms whenever possible (e.g., by using only established, standard terms that appear in reference texts [6, 7] or online databases such as MEDLINE), and that journal editors and reviewers expand and strengthen their efforts to restrict use of acronyms in scientific publications. Dr. Lévy and colleagues were offered an opportunity to respond to Dr. Farber's letter but declined.
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Vallejo, California REFERENCES
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
