PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Periodicals 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 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Letters or lectures?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Correspondence as Topic↗
PubMed1996

Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Lately, the number of systematic reviews published has increased substantially. Many systematic reviews exclude trials published in languages other than English. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this action. We looked for differences in the completeness of reporting between trials published in other languages and those published in English, to see whether the exclusion of trials published in other languages is justified. METHODS: We compared completeness of reporting, design characteristics, and analytical approaches of 133 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 1989 and 1994 and 96 published in French, German, Italian, or Spanish during the same time. RCTs were identified by hand searching of journals (seven in English and six in the other languages). FINDINGS: We found no significant differences between trials published in English and other-language trials for any single item in the completeness of reporting scale (randomisation, double-blinding, withdrawals), or for the overall score (percentage of maximum possible score 51.0% for trials in English, 46.2% for trials in other languages; 95% CI for difference -1.1 to 10.5). Other-language trials were more likely than English-language trials to have adult participants, to use two or more interventions, and to compare two or more active treatments without an untreated control group. Trials in other languages were less likely to report a clearly prespecified primary outcome or any rationale for sample size estimation. INTERPRETATION: These results provide evidence for inclusion of all trial reports, irrespective of the language in which they are published, in systematic reviews. Their inclusion is likely to increase precision and may reduce systematic errors. We hope that our findings will prove useful to those developing guidelines and policies for the conduct of reporting of systematic reviews.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

What is newsworthy?

Why one event is deemed newsworthy while another is not seems to be one of the biggest puzzles to newspaper readers. A science story, just like any other story, must compete for space, and whether it is chosen depends on headline potential, the relationship between the journalist and section head, external social and cultural events, and sources of news. Although the choice of news is affected mainly by the desire to establish a certain complicity with the reader, ultimately, it is the journalist's intuition that influences what is published.

Ethics↗
PubMed1993

Reference accuracy in the emergency medicine literature.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence and nature of errors in the citation and quotation of references contained in the emergency medicine literature. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a random sample of articles and references found in the three major emergency medicine journals. SETTING: A university/county hospital. METHODS: We examined single issues of three emergency medicine journals: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Journal of Emergency Medicine, and American Journal of Emergency Medicine. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Four independent reviewers assessed 145 references from 46 referring authors for citational and quotational accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Major and minor citation errors were found in 10.3% and 17.2% of reference listings, respectively. Qualitative quotational errors were found in 35.2% of references. Eighty-two percent of these errors were considered to be major. Quantitative quotational errors were found in 47% of references reviewed. Secondary rather than primary reference sources were used in 41.4% of references reviewed. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a substantial error rate in the citation and quotation of reference sources in the emergency medicine literature. In addition, verification of primary source material was not done by a large percentage of the authors reviewed. Recommendations for improving the accuracy of the emergency medicine literature are offered.

Bias↗