Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

F Davidoff

Publications and source records attributed to F Davidoff.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper.

CONTEXT: Biomedical manuscripts undergo substantive change as a result of the peer review and editorial revision processes. OBJECTIVE: To characterize quantitatively problems in manuscripts identified during peer review and changes made to address these problems. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive analysis of manuscripts submitted to and articles published by the Annals of Internal Medicine. A taxonomy of problems that occur in reporting clinical research was developed from analysis of changes made to 7 manuscripts between submission and publication (published October 15, 1996, and November 1, 1996). The taxonomy was used to characterize changes to 12 additional manuscripts (published January 15, 1997, to April 1, 1997). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Types of problems necessitating changes to manuscripts during peer review and revision. RESULTS: Changes occurred because of 5 types of problems: too much information, too little information, inaccurate information, misplaced information, and structural problems. Changes most often occurred because information was missing or extraneous. The distribution of changes seemed to be influenced by the type of information involved (such as background or conclusions). CONCLUSION: The proposed framework may be useful for characterizing quantitatively the effects of peer review and for comparing those effects across editors, journals, and specialties.

Peer Review↗
PubMed1997

Databases in the next millennium.

Predicting the likelihood that large databases will become an important instrument for medical quality improvement is at least as difficult as most prognostication. This attempt at prediction starts by trying to ask the right questions: Can data serve as the agent for meaningful improvement? Is meaningful improvement possible without data? What elements are necessary and sufficient for improving the quality of medical care? It then looks for answers, starting with an unconventional excursion into the history of database use. This is followed by a recognition that the use of large databases for medical quality improvement is a true innovation, the future of which will probably be determined as much by the social and emotional forces that govern the diffusion of all innovations as by the technical strength of databases themselves. Finally, it examines some of the limitations and pitfalls that are likely to be associated with the increasing use of large databases in medicine.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed1997

Time.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMed1996

Important elements of outpatient care: a comparison of patients' and physicians' opinions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patients' and physicians' opinions on the importance of discrete elements of health care as determinants of the quality of outpatient care. DESIGN: Analysis of results of a mailed survey. SETTING: Community-based internal medicine practices. PARTICIPANTS: 74 general internists and 814 patients randomly selected from the practices of these internists. MEASURES: 125 elements of care that covered nine domains were identified: physician clinical skill, physician interpersonal skill, support staff, office environment, provision of information, patient involvement, nonfinancial access, finances, and coordination of care. Participants rated each element on its importance to high-quality care on a 4-point scale: 1 = not important; 2 = of medium importance; 3 = of high importance; and 4 = essential. Patients' and physicians' ratings were compared for individual elements of care and for elements aggregated into domains. RESULTS: Survey response rates were 93% for physicians and 60% for patients. In an element-by-element comparison of ratings, ratings by the two groups differed substantially for 58% of the attributes. The most striking difference was seen in the domain of provision of information (median ratings, 3.56 for patients and 2.85 for physicians; P < 0.001). Ratings by the two groups also differed in the domains of clinical skill (3.75 for patients and 3.35 for physicians; P < 0.001), nonfinancial access (3.00 for patients and 2.87 for physicians; P < 0.001), and finances (3.00 for patients and 2.80 for physicians; P = 0.006). When relative rankings of the domains were compared, both groups agreed that clinical skill is most important; however, patients ranked provision of information second in importance whereas physicians ranked it sixth. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians agreed that the most crucial element of outpatient care is clinical skill, but they disagreed about the relative importance of other aspects of care, particularly effective communication of health-related information. These differences in perception may influence the quality of interactions between physicians and patients.

Adolescent↗