LAUSR

Abstract Research articles serve not just to inform but also to convince. Consequently, authors may be inclined to employ language to ‘sell’ aspects of their study. Such language may undermine objective and disinterested interpretation and bias readers’ evaluation of new knowledge. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are a type of study that aims to minimise bias when testing treatments and, in medicine, RCTs are generally regarded as the ‘gold standard’. This study provides quantitative and qualitative descriptions of how authors of RCTs use hyperbolic and/or subjective language to glamorise, promote and/or exaggerate aspects of their research – a phenomenon we refer to as ‘hype’. From a corpus of twenty-four RCTs in orthopaedic medicine we identified 161 hypes which we categorised for functional target and linguistic realization. Hypes in RCTs are most prevalent in Discussion sections and most frequently serve to aggrandize the methodology and sell the paper. Findings are discussed in relation to competition, pressure to publish, and the influence of standardised guidelines. Implications for the producers and consumers of the medical literature are considered.