SEARCH · PubMed Health
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Nowadays scientific publishing in peer reviewed international accepted journals is not easy. Rejection rates up to 75% occur. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance in the preparation of journal papers for the inexperienced scientific writer. The traditional paragraphs Abstract, Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion are described with respect to its contents and basic message and how these sections are designed to build a logical flow. Approved suggestions for the structural outline of each paragraph are made. The significance of reference list, figures, and tables is also explained. The review of a manuscript is discussed and the criterias for acceptance of a journal paper are indicated.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: There is a perception that many drug usage evaluations do not widely influence prescribing behaviour. The aim of this study was to critically evaluate recent journal articles which fit the Medline definition for Drug Utilization Review (DUR) and which also cover multiple healthcare sites. METHODS: PubMed (National Library of Medicine, NLM) (2003, 2004) was searched using the MeSH topic 'drug utilization'. Retrieved studies were evaluated to ascertain those describing a DUR (measuring drug use against specific criteria). These were subdivided according to whether the DUR was conducted at one site or across many. The multi-centre DURs were critically reviewed, including evaluating whether all phases of a quality cycle were completed and determining aspects of design such as whether the study was prospective or retrospective, any interventions conducted and provision of feedback. RESULTS: A total of 646 unique articles were retrieved. Of these, 495 (77%) did not meet the definition for DUR, while 151 (23%) articles did. Thirty-five (5%) described English language multi-centre DURs; ethics approval was obtained in ten of these and 18 were carried out retrospectively. In all 35 studies some comparator or standard was used, but only eight conducted an intervention and only three provided feedback to the prescribers. CONCLUSION: Most DURs were not conducted across a number of centres. Of the recent published multi-centre DURs most presented only an initial audit and did not complete the quality cycle with feedback, intervention and re-audit. To widely influence prescribing behaviour, the full cycle is required with involvement of as many sites as possible to achieve improvements across many jurisdictions.
The overwhelming increase in the quantity of clinical evidence has led to detachment of the evidence and practice because new evidence can be integrated into clinical practice only after it has been critically appraised and synthesized on the basis of the existing evidence. Because many clinicians lack the skills and the time for such information processing, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, their quantitative counterparts, play an important role in health care. Well performed systematic reviews provide clinically relevant information for surgeons, abrogating the need to identify, read, and evaluate many individual studies. This article reviews the basic principles of meta-analysis, discusses its potential weaknesses such as heterogeneity and publication bias, and highlights special situations when dealing with surgical trials.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
English has become the international language in our world of learning. Yet to write a medical manuscript in a second language that is so difficult to master is a challenge for many doctors whose native language is not English. My aim is to convey that it need not be such a challenge if you follow a few simple rules based on the concept of "simplicity = clarity = effective communication." Your aim is to publish important research findings and contribute to medical advancement; however, your paper will have impact only if the readers can understand it easily.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
An underlying assumption of self-care interventions is that they are most effective when reinforced. To test this assumption, 8 months after baseline, 589 subjects who had taken a 6-week Arthritis Self-management Course (ASMC) were randomized to (1) receive a bi-monthly arthritis newsletter, (2) attend a new 6-week Arthritis Reinforcement Course (ARC) or (3) receive no reinforcement. Between 8 and 20 months there were no significant differences among the three randomized groups. The results were unaltered by inclusion of assumed data of no change for the 46 subjects who did not complete the full 20-month study. Between baseline and 20 months all participants reduced their pain by 20%, depression by 14%, and visits to physicians by 35% (P less than 0.01). There were no trends toward loss of these effects over time. These findings indicate that the effects of a self-care intervention were sustained over 20 months and that the tested forms of reinforcement did not alter those effects.
The source of ideas and information on medicines most important to journalists in the Netherlands, and most commonly consulted by them, is known to be the scientific medical literature. In this study we therefore, explored the relation between the kind of medicines discussed in the scientific medical literature and those discussed in newspapers. A content analysis of scientific medical journals was combined with a content analysis of Dutch daily newspapers. The results show an agreement in the main groups of medicines discussed in the scientific medical literature and newspapers. In both the newspapers and the professional journals anti-infective medication and drugs for the central nervous system are the groups of medicines most frequently discussed. Although it has been suggested that 'bad news' is more newsworthy then 'good news', the negative consequences of the use of medicines received proportionally more attention in the professional literature than in the newspapers.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This study was carried out to determine if the content of structured abstracts conforms with recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group for the critical appraisal of the medical literature as adopted by the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study design was a survey. All articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine in 1991, excluding editorials, case-reports, literature reviews, decision analysis, studies in medical education, descriptive studies of clinical and basic phenomena, and papers lacking a structured abstract, were studied. Of a total of 150 articles, 20 were excluded. The abstract and text of each article were assessed for the presence of the following items; patient selection criteria, statements concerning extrapolation of findings, need for further study, and whether or not the information should be used now. Number of refusers, drop outs and reason(s) for drop outs were assessed for intervention and prospective cohort studies only. Deficiencies of assessed items were noted in both abstracts and texts. For abstracts, patient selection criteria, numbers of refusers, number of drop outs and reason(s) for drop outs were reported in 44.6% (58/130), 3.1% (4/130), 16.9% (14/83) and 2.4% (2/83) respectively. These items were reported more frequently in the texts 87.7% (114/130), 9.2% (12/130), 60.2% (50/83) and 37.3% (31/83) respectively (p < 0.05). Statements concerning extrapolation of findings, need for further study and use of information now were also more frequent in texts than abstracts (p < 0.0001). A large number of structured abstracts published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 1991, lack information recommended by the Ad Hoc Working Group. Our findings should not be extrapolated to other journals requiring structured abstracts.