PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Manuscripts as Topic”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Neuropsychiatric perspectives from nineteenth-century India: the diaries of Dr Charles I. Smith.

The history of disease contributes to a better understanding of the growth of ideas in medicine. The colonial period was marked by a rapid increase in the variety of diseases that were known to European practitioners. We have studied the diary of Dr Charles Smith who worked in Bangalore in the nineteenth century. We feel that some of his descriptions tally with later accounts of cysticercosis. He also comments on a wide range of behavioural symptoms, and attempts to correlate neuropathological observations to these. This neuropsychiatric perspective was prominent in the nineteenth century. Infective causes of psychiatric disorders are once again considered important; this account highlights the fact that similar ideas were prevalent in British India, even 150 years ago. In addition, Dr Smith's comments describe the social mileu of 'western' medicine in India in the early colonial period.

Colonialism↗
PubMed2005

Respecting tribal traditions in research and publications: voices of five Native American nurse scholars.

A dialogue with five Native American scholars provides insight into conducting research and publishing resulting manuscripts on Native American topics, specifically healing beliefs and practices. This information provides a means to develop sensitivity and create understanding about concerns held by Native Americans regarding sharing certain defined cultural information with those outside the culture. The article identifies salient tribal issues related to research, discusses perspectives important to tribal nations and Native individuals surrounding research, and supplies a base on which to formulate further discussions.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2006

How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: a randomized study in a general medical journal.

OBJECTIVE: Many biomedical journals have introduced disclosure of research contribution in journal articles as a way to limit irresponsible authorship. Over the years, journals have developed different contribution disclosure policies and procedures, but it is not known how these policies and procedures affect authorship. The aim of our study was to analyse possible causative relationships between the structure of the contribution disclosure form and the number of authors who do not meet authorship criteria in biomedicine set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a single-blind randomized trial, 1462 authors of 332 manuscripts submitted to a general medical journal answered one of three different contribution disclosure forms: (1) open-ended -- asking the respondents to describe in their own words their contributions in the submitted work; (2) categorical -- with 11 possible contribution choices and (3) instructional -- guiding through the ICMJE definition and instructing how many contributions are needed to satisfy individual criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of authors not satisfying ICMJE authorship criteria. RESULTS: The group answering the instructional form had significantly fewer authors whose reported contributions did not satisfy ICMJE criteria (18.7%) than the groups answering the categorical (62.8%) or open-ended (54.7%) form (chi2(2 ) = 210.833, p < 0.001). The group receiving instructional forms also had the fewest articles with honorary authors (32.5%) compared with those who responded in a categorical (68.7%) or open-ended (83.0%) form (chi2(2 ) = 63.378, p < 0.001). All authors who answered the open-ended form, regardless of their compliance with authorship criteria, reported significantly fewer contributions (median 3 [95% confidence interval = 3-3]) than authors responding to either the categorical (4 [4-4]; z score = -7.1899, p < 0.001) or instructional form (4 [4-5]; z score = -13.9760, p < 0.001). Honorary authors answering the instructional form reported more contributions than those answering either the categorical or open-ended form (z score = 2.7637, p = 0.0057 and z score = -3.3773, p < 0.001, respectively). Most honorary authors (39.9%) lacked only the third ICMJE criterion (final approval of the submitted manuscript). CONCLUSIONS: The structure of the contribution disclosure form significantly influenced the number of contributions reported by authors of submitted manuscripts and their compliance with the ICMJE authorship criteria. Journal editors should be aware of the cognitive aspects of survey methodology when they construct for their authors self-reports about behaviour, such as contribution disclosure forms.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

Effects of the search technique on the measurement of the change in quality of randomized controlled trials over time in the field of brain injury.

BACKGROUND: To determine if the search technique that is used to sample randomized controlled trial (RCT) manuscripts from a field of medical science can influence the measurement of the change in quality over time in that field. METHODS: RCT manuscripts in the field of brain injury were identified using two readily-available search techniques: (1) a PubMed MEDLINE search, and (2) the Cochrane Injuries Group (CIG) trials registry. Seven criteria of quality were assessed in each manuscript and related to the year-of-publication of the RCT manuscripts by regression analysis. RESULTS: No change in the frequency of reporting of any individual quality criterion was found in the sample of RCT manuscripts identified by the PubMed MEDLINE search. In the RCT manuscripts of the CIG trials registry, three of the seven criteria showed significant or near-significant increases over time. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that measuring the change in quality over time of a sample of RCT manuscripts from the field of brain injury can be greatly affected by the search technique. This poorly recognized factor may make measurements of the change in RCT quality over time within a given field of medical science unreliable.

Bias↗
PubMed2006

Country development and manuscript selection bias: a review of published studies.

BACKGROUND: Manuscript selection bias is the selective publication of manuscripts based on study characteristics other than quality indicators. One reason may be a perceived editorial bias against the researches from less-developed world. We aimed to compare the methodological quality and statistical appeal of trials from countries with different development status and to determine their association with the journal impact factors and language of publication. METHODS SELECTION CRITERIA: Based on the World Bank income criteria countries were divided into four groups. All records of clinical trials conducted in each income group during 1993 and 2003 were included if they contained abstract and study sample size. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was searched and 50 articles selected from each income group using a systematic random sampling method in years 1993 and 2003 separately. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by two reviewers on the language of publication, use of randomization, blinding, intention to treat analysis, study sample size and statistical significance. Disagreement was dealt with by consensus. Journal impact factors were obtained from the institute for scientific information. RESULTS: Four hundred records were explored. Country income had an inverse linear association with the presence of randomization (chi2 for trend = 5.6, p = 0.02) and a direct association with the use of blinding (chi2 for trend = 6.9, p = 0.008); although in low income countries the probability of blinding was increased from 36% in 1993 to 46% in 2003. In 1993 the results of 68% of high income trials and 64.7% of other groups were statistically significant; but in 2003 they were 66% and 82% respectively. Study sample size and income were the only significant predictors of journal impact factor. CONCLUSION: The impact of country development on manuscript selection bias is considerable and may be increasing over time. It seems that one reason may be more stringent implementation of the guidelines for improving the reporting quality of trials on developing world researchers. Another reason may be the presumptions of the researchers from developing world about the editorial bias against their nationality.

Developing Countries↗
PubMed2003

Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript.

BACKGROUND: Several factors including reviewers' gender can influence the assessment of submitted manuscripts. PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate the effects of reviewers' gender on the assessment of a gender-related study. METHOD: One hundred reviewers (50 women) were randomly selected from Academic Medicine's reviewer pool. Two versions of an empirical study of medical students in which women forecast a lower professional income than men were prepared, and each version was randomly assigned to 25 men and 25 women reviewers. The two versions were identical except for one sentence in the abstract and two sentences in the conclusion. Version 1 attributed the lower forecast income of women to intrinsic gender factors (e.g., lower financial incentives). Version 2 attributed the difference to extrinsic social learning factors (e.g., socialization bias). RESULTS: Results showed no significant gender difference in reviewers' evaluations of the two manuscript versions. CONCLUSION: Although no evidence of reviewers' gender bias was found in this study, alternative explanations of the findings suggest that further empirical research is needed.

Double-Blind Method↗