Mindel Scott

Medical Article Review Template

When searching the literature on your topic, please consult several sources of evidence-based reviews (Table 1). Look for relevant guidelines for diagnosing, treating or preventing the disorder in question. Include any high-quality recommendations that are relevant to the topic. When considering the first draft, pay attention to all important recommendations for diagnosis and, in particular, treatment. Try to ensure that all recommendations are based on the highest level of evidence available. If you are unsure of the source or strength of the recommendation, go back to the documentation and look for the basis for the recommendation. The discussion can then follow the typical format of a clinical review article. It should address one or more of the following sub-themes: etiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation (signs and symptoms), diagnostic assessment (medical history, physical examination, laboratory evaluation and diagnostic imaging), differential diagnosis, treatment (objectives, medical/surgical treatment, laboratory tests, patient education and follow-up), prognosis, prevention and future directions. In conversation, however, even experienced researchers admit that learning peer review is part of a hidden curriculum in academia – a skill learned not through formal means, but through mimicry.6 Therefore, when beginners learn the process, they may adopt bad habits.

In the case of peer review, learning is the result of reading a large number of scientific papers, occasional conversations with mentors, or often a “test of fire” experienced by peer feedback on their own submissions. Patient examiners are rarely exposed to these experiences and may not know where to start. As a result, some may miss opportunities to provide valuable and highly insightful feedback on research publications. While some reviews are very specific about how reviewers should structure their comments, many publications, including top-notch medical journals, assume that all reviewers know how to construct responses. Few forward-thinking journals that actively seek peer reviews of people with lived health experiences currently refer to review boards developed for experienced professionals.7 Competing interests The authors have read and understood the BMJ`s declaration of interests policy and declare the following interests: LS is a member of the BMJ Patient Advisory Committee, acts as a patient reviewer for the BMJ and is an ad hoc reviewer for the Institute for Patient-Centred Outcomes Research; CB is a Keane OpenNotes Fellow; LS and CB are working on OpenNotes, a philanthropist-funded research initiative focused on improving transparency in healthcare. A hierarchy of evidence for different research questions is presented in Table 4. However, this hierarchy is only a first step. After finding high-quality research articles, you don`t need to read all the other articles, which will save you a lot of time. [14] In order to clarify the important questions to be answered, it is necessary to determine more or less the number of references to be consulted. Discussions should take place with colleagues in the same area of interest and time should be set aside to resolve the problem(s). While it may seem very tempting to write the review article in a timely manner, the time you spend identifying important issues will not be a waste of time. [9] Provenance and peer review commissioned; externally evaluated.

Traditional clinical journal articles, also called updates, are different from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Updates selectively review the medical literature while a topic is widely discussed. Non-quantitative systematic reviews comprehensively review the medical literature and attempt to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach for diagnosis or treatment. Meta-analyses (quantitative systematic reviews) attempt to answer a targeted clinical question using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. This article provides guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article for American Family Physician. First, the topic should be of common interest and relevant to family practice. Attach a table of medical education objectives to the exam. Indicate how the literature review was conducted and include multiple sources of evidence-based reviews, such as: The Cochrane Collaboration, BMJ Clinical Evidence, or the InfoRetriever website. Where possible, use evidence based on clinical outcomes related to morbidity, mortality or quality of life, as well as studies in primary care populations. In articles submitted to American Family Physician, rate the level of evidence for important recommendations using the following scale: Level A (randomized controlled trial [RCT], meta-analysis); Level B (other evidence); Level C (consensus/expert opinion).

Finally, provide a table of key summary points. Their main task is to evaluate the content of the research. Don`t spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors ensure that the text is of a high standard before publication. However, if you discover grammatical errors that compromise the clarity of meaning, it is important to highlight them. Expect to propose such changes – it is rare for a manuscript to pass the exam without corrections. If a cited article is at the heart of the author`s argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference – and keep in mind that different fields may use citations differently. Otherwise, it`s the editor`s job to thoroughly examine the reference section for accuracy and format. If you receive an invitation to a peer review, you should receive a copy of the abstract of the article to help you decide whether or not to proceed with the review. Try to respond quickly to invitations – this will avoid delays. At this point, it is also important to explain a potential conflict of interest.

Many journals do not offer criteria for journals beyond the question of your “merit analysis”. In this case, you may want to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews for the journal that the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style. In this article, we present guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article, particularly for continuing medical education (CME) and integrating CME objectives into its format. This article may be read as a companion article to a previous article and an accompanying editorial on reading and evaluating clinical journal articles.1,2 Some articles may not be suitable for an evidence-based format due to the nature of the topic, the slope of the article, lack of sufficient evidence, or other factors.