Rhetorical inflation refers to the use of exaggerated or overly assertive language to make study results, arguments, or conclusions appear more significant, definitive, or impactful than the underlying evidence justifies.
Characteristics
Overstating clinical significance (e.g., “effective treatment” based on marginal or non-significant findings)
Using emotionally charged or persuasive phrasing to mask methodological limitations
Drawing strong conclusions from weak, exploratory, or underpowered data
Presenting correlation as causation without acknowledging alternative explanations
Examples in Clinical Literature
Claiming “breakthrough” or “landmark” results from a small, single-center pilot study
Asserting “optimal dosing identified” in a post hoc secondary analysis
Using phrases like “robust benefit,” “clearly effective,” or “clinically proven” without statistical support
Why It Matters
Misleads readers, clinicians, and policymakers
Contributes to publication bias and false expectations
Undermines evidence-based medicine by elevating rhetoric over rigor