SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “British Medical Journal”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1990

An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal.

Statistical assessment of papers submitted to the British Medical Journal has increased to some 300 papers annually. The assessment produces a recommendation to the editor on each paper from a statistical viewpoint together with a completed checklist that indicates the quality of certain important features. This exploratory study was aimed at monitoring the process. It reports a comparison of checklist answers on 45 papers as originally submitted with those on the papers as subsequently published. Of the 45 papers, only 5 (11%) were considered statistically acceptable at submission, but this increased to 38 (84%) after publication. Revisions had not been made adequately in 4 of the 7 unsatisfactory published papers, and the 3 others were thought to be of dubious validity. A major omission from at least 28 papers was information on sample size calculations. It is concluded that statistical assessment is beneficial but that further efforts by authors and assessors could make it even more effective.

Peer Review↗

PubMed1994

Auditing the British Medical Journal.

The purpose of this study was to audit the outcome in terms of change in practice of the published research from one volume of the British Medical Journal. All original papers and short reports from one Volume 296 of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) 1988 were read and classified into theoretical only, practical and theoretical and practical. Those papers with any practical message were reviewed by one of a panel of specialists in the subject of the paper to assess if the recommendation made by the paper had become common clinical practice. The results show that most papers originated from teaching centres and research institutes in the UK. Only 8% of main papers and 6% of short reports had a solely practical application, although a further 18% and 22% had practical elements. The majority of the recommendations aimed at changing practice were of relevance to hospital specialists rather than general practitioners (GPs). Of the papers with any practical implications 48% (12% of the total) of main papers and 41% (11% of the total) of short reports were considered to be current practice. The reasons why the papers failed to change practice are discussed. In conclusion, the majority of the original research papers published in the BMJ in 1988 were of a theoretical nature and only about 20% of papers made recommendations for a change in practice. About 50% of the recommendations are now current practice.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

PubMed1994

Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in three medical journals. DESIGN: Blind, criterion-based observational study. SAMPLE: Random sample of 300 abstracts (25 abstracts per journal each year) of articles published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1988 and 1989 (nonstructured abstracts) and in 1991 and 1992 (structured abstracts). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of abstracts was measured against 33 objective criteria, which were divided into eight categories (purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results and conclusions). The quality score was determined by dividing the number of criteria present by the number applicable; the score varied from 0 to 1. RESULTS: The overall mean quality scores for nonstructured and structured abstracts were 0.57 and 0.74 respectively (p < 0.001). The frequency in meeting the specific criteria was generally higher for the structured abstracts than for the nonstructured ones. The mean quality score was higher for nonstructured abstracts in JAMA than for those in BMJ (0.60 v. 0.54, p < 0.05). The scores for structured abstracts did not differ significantly between the three journals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support recommendations that promote the use of structured abstracts. Further studies should be performed to assess the effect of time on the quality of abstracts and the extent to which abstracts reflect the content of the articles.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

PubMed1983

Is the statistical assessment of papers submitted to the "British Medical Journal" effective?

A study was performed to judge the effectiveness of the statistical assessment scheme for papers submitted to the "British Medical Journal." Statistical criticism of the content of 200 submitted papers which had already been seen by a subject referee led directly or indirectly to 73 (37%) being rejected for publication. In most cases (53 out of 73) serious problems requiring more than minor revision were identified. A comparison of reports on subsequently unpublished and published papers showed that adverse statistical assessments--suggesting major problems--were more common in the papers that were not accepted for publication. Moderate, or less, revision was recommended for 63% of published papers but 39% of the remainder. A checklist of relevant questions was used in making a detailed comparison of 12 published papers, six of which had been statistically assessed and six of which had not. This comparison yielded little evidence that the papers that had been assessed were statistically more acceptable than those that had not been assessed but re-emphasised the subjectivity of refereeing and assessment.

Periodicals as Topic↗

PubMed2006

From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We characterize the quantity and quality of data tables and figures in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) submitted to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and published in peer-reviewed journals. We investigate how the peer review process affected table and figure quality. METHODS: We reviewed 62 consecutive reports of RCTs submitted to the BMJ in 2001 that were later published in the BMJ (n=12) or elsewhere. We counted and categorized the tables and figures in both the initial submissions and published articles. Using standardized instruments and procedures, we analyzed the quality of these tables and figures and checked BMJ editorial documents to see whether changes were triggered by their review process. RESULTS: The numbers of tables and figures did not change markedly between submission and publication. Five percent of publications had no data tables; 56% had no data figures. Data density was low for published tables and figures. Tables seldom showed data stratified on important covariates; 88% of published tables were simple lists or were stratified on only 1 variable. Less than half the figures met their data presentation potential, with most failing to portray by-subject data and few displaying advanced features such as pairing, symbolic dimensionality, or small multiples. BMJ external peer reviewers seldom commented on tables or figures. CONCLUSION: Tables and figures can convey details and complex relationships not easily described in text. Although tables are included in most submitted and published articles, they are not presented optimally; figures are used sparingly and are also of suboptimal quality. Journals should consider improving their table and figure quality in the hope that improved graphics will empower readers to scrutinize the data, thereby dissuading authors from presenting biased analyses and misrepresented conclusions.

Documentation↗

PubMed2003

An audit of job application forms in response to adverts in the British Medical Journal.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the speed of response of human resources departments to requests for job application forms for posts advertised in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Of particular interest was the closing date for applications, postage cost, and the period to reply. DESIGN: Twenty posts were randomly selected and application forms requested by telephone and then 20 by letter on two separate dates from the BMJ Classified (issues of 21 July 2001 and 28 July 2001). During the first week the forms were requested by telephone on receipt of the BMJ (Friday afternoon). During the second week the forms were requested by first class post. All letters were sent out on Saturday morning. OUTCOME MEASURES: The date of receipt of the application form/information pack, the cost of postage, and the closing date for application were recorded for each position. RESULTS: Fifteen forms were received after the telephone application and 18 forms after the letter applications. One trust sent two replies spaced one week apart for the same job and two replies contained job application forms for the wrong job. The response rates to telephone requests varied from four to 10 days and by letter from three to 12 days. The minimum time between the reply being received and the closing date was one day, and the maximum 21 days. The time between the closing date for applications and the start date of the job varied from minus one week (closing date before advertisement) to three months. Thirteen replies gave no indication of the start date of the job. The cost of postage varied from 27p to pound 1.90. Thirty one trusts used first class postage. CONCLUSION: There is very limited scope to return job application forms on time, and significant delays in sending out application forms and information packs compound this problem. It is recommended that trust human resources departments place advertisements early and respond promptly to requests for application forms.

Advertising↗

PubMed2005

Quality of structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association: a 10-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the quality of structured abstracts of original research articles from the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) from 1991 to 1992 and 2001 to 2002 between journals. METHODS: A random, stratified sample of 54 abstracts from 2001 to 2002 in BMJ, CMAJ, and JAMA was compiled and coded. Two blinded raters reviewed 27 abstracts each against 33 objective criteria, separated into eight categories (purpose, research design, setting, subjects, intervention, measurement of variables, results, and conclusion). The quality score was the proportion of criteria present (range = 0-1). RESULTS: The overall mean quality score (0.74) for 2001-2002 was significantly higher than the 1988-1989 unstructured abstracts (mean = 0.57; p<0.001) but not different from the 1991-1992 structured abstracts (mean = 0.74; p>0.05). In 2001-2002, abstracts of CMAJ and JAMA (both means = 0.76) improved significantly over 1991-1992 (p<0.05) and scored significantly higher than BMJ (mean = 0.71; d.f. = 16, p<0.05). Some individual criteria scores (intervention, statistical information) improved but information was found consistently under-represented in areas that imply shortcomings of the studies. INTERPRETATION: We found a consistency in abstract quality regardless of the precise format used by different journals. This indicates that the framework for research articles already in place should be maintained and further modification of the framework may not necessarily improve the abstract quality.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

PubMed2005

The bootstrap: a technique for data-driven statistics. Using computer-intensive analyses to explore experimental data.

BACKGROUND: The concept of resampling data--more commonly referred to as bootstrapping--has been in use for more than three decades. Bootstrapping has considerable theoretical advantages when it is applied to non-Gaussian data. Most of the published literature is concerned with the mathematical aspects of the bootstrap but increasingly this technique is being utilized in medical and other fields. METHODS: I reviewed the published literature following a 1994 publication assessing the transfer of technology, including the bootstrap, to the biomedical literature. RESULTS: In the ten-year period following that 1994 paper there were 1679 published references to the technique in Medline. In that same time period the following citations were found in the four major medical journals-British Medical Journal (48), JAMA (51), Lancet (52) and the New England Journal of Medicine (45). CONTENT: I introduce the basic theory of the bootstrap, the jackknife, and permutation tests. The bootstrap is used to estimate the accuracy of an estimator such as the standard error, a confidence interval, or the bias of an estimator. The technique may be useful for analysing smallish expensive-to-collect data sets where prior information is sparse, distributional assumptions are unclear, and where further data may be difficult to acquire. Some of the elementary uses of bootstrapping are illustrated by considering the calculation of confidence intervals such as for reference ranges or for experimental data findings, hypothesis testing such as comparing experimental findings, linear regression, and correlation when studying association and prediction of variables, non-linear regression such as used in immunoassay techniques, and ROC curve processing. CONCLUSIONS: These techniques can supplement current nonparametric statistical methods and should be included, where appropriate, in the armamentarium of data processing methodologies.

Computers↗

PubMed2004