Earlier today, I'm in my cubicle performing the most mundane of all editorial tasks - verifying references in PubMed. And as I waded my way through, I realized that the definition of the word acronym must have changed over the last few years. So, I went to dictionary.com, and here's what I found:
n. A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging.
OK, so if the definition hasn't changed, how the hell does this happen:
Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration with Photodynamic Therapy (TAP) Study Group. Photodynamic therapy of subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration with verteporfin. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(2):198-207.
Or worse yet, this:
Anti-VEGF Antibody for the Treatment of Predominantly Classic Choroidal Neovascularization in Age-Related Macular Degeneration (ANCHOR) Research Group. Improved vision-related function after ranibizumab vs photodynamic therapy. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(1):13-21.
I understand that it's nifty to create a study/reseach group that has an acronym that doubles as a real word, but just how much creative license is being expended these days to create acronyms? I mean, how do we get an acronym like ANCHOR, when only two out of 14 words (and some pretty sizable words at that) are used to create it?
WTF indeed?
1. I totally agree - the acronym situation in peer-reviewed medical literature is completely out of control.
ReplyDelete2. PubMed! NOBODY knows what PubMed is! I'm on that site every GD day! HELLOOOOO fellow PubMed user!
Okay, that was way too many exclamation points. Sorry (I get carried away sometiems)
Lily,
ReplyDeleteMaybe we need a PubMed support group. I think the over-reliance on exclamation points (I'm also guilty) is directly correlated with the amount of time we spend verifying and correcting other peoples' sloppy work.
See you on the 'Med.