Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Manuscripts, Medical as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the 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
PubMed2000

Medical practice and manuscripts in Byzantium.

Scholars, past and present, have belittled Byzantine medicine for its perceived static and derivative nature. Applied to the medicine of the centuries immediately before and after the year 1000, these criticisms, though apparently sustainable, fail to recognize its underlying vigour. It was a practical craft medicine, and one which used elements of magic and religion to compensate for the intractability of the many diseases that were not amenable to medicine. These centuries were a time when hospitals flourished in Byzantium, and this paper assembles and describes some of the manuscripts that can be associated with them. The influence of islamic medicine, which had hitherto borrowed from Byzantium, is also examined. If the Byzantine medicine of this period could not claim great originality or innovation, it had none the less distilled what was best and most useful from the long and often complex medical writings of antiquity, ensured its transmission, and preserved much from earlier times that would otherwise now be lost.

Byzantium↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Preparing manuscripts for submission to medical journals: the paper trail.

CONTEXT: Preparing a manuscript for publication in a medical journal is hard work. OBJECTIVE: To make it easier to prepare a readable manuscript. APPROACH: Start early--A substantial portion of the manuscript can be written before the project is completed. Even though you will revise it later, starting early will help document the methods and guide the analysis. Focus on high-visibility components--Pay attention to what readers are most likely to look at: the title, abstract, tables, and figures. Strive to develop a set of tables and figures that convey not only the major results but also the basic methods. Develop a systematic approach to the body of the paper--A standard framework can make it easier to write the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. An obvious organization with frequent subheadings and consistent labels makes the paper easier to read. Finish strong--Improve the paper by sharing it with others and by learning how to elicit and receive their feedback. Take the time to incorporate useful feedback by revising frequently.

Data Display↗
PubMed2002

Publication bias in editorial decision making.

CONTEXT: Studies with positive results are more likely to be published than studies with negative results (publication bias). One reason this occurs is that authors are less likely to submit manuscripts reporting negative results to journals. There is no evidence that publication bias occurs once manuscripts have been submitted to a medical journal. We assessed whether submitted manuscripts that report results of controlled trials are more likely to be published if they report positive results. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of manuscripts submitted to JAMA from February 1996 through August 1999. We classified results as positive if there was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) reported for the primary outcome. Study characteristics and indicators for quality were also appraised. We included manuscripts that reported prospective studies in which participants were assigned to an intervention or comparison group and statistical tests compared differences between groups. RESULTS: Among 745 manuscripts, 133 (17.9%) were published: 78 (20.4%) of 383 with positive results, 51 (15.0%) of 341 with negative results, and 4 (19.0%) of 21 with unclear results. The crude relative risk for publication of studies with positive results compared with negative results was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.88). After being adjusted simultaneously for study characteristics and quality indicators, the odds ratio for publishing studies with positive results was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.87-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: Among submitted manuscripts, we did not find a statistically significant difference in publication rates between those with positive vs negative results.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2002

Association between time interval to publication and statistical significance.

CONTEXT: Studies have shown that reports from clinical trials with statistically significant results tend to be submitted and published more rapidly than reports from studies with null or insignificant findings. METHODS: We wanted to determine whether manuscripts reporting positive results from controlled clinical trials are published more quickly than those reporting negative results. We tracked manuscripts from submission to JAMA until the publication decision. We classified results as positive if a statistically significant difference was reported for the primary outcome. Manuscripts were further classified according to indicators of methodologic quality and other study characteristics. We included manuscripts if they were submitted from February 1996 through August 1999, reported results of a prospective study in which participants were assigned to a treatment or comparison group, used statistical tests to compare differences between groups, and were accepted for publication. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three manuscripts met our inclusion criteria, 78 (59%) reported positive results, 51 (38%) reported negative results. We were unable to classify the direction of results for 4 articles (3%). The time interval between submission and publication was not associated with positive results: median time between submission and publication was 7.8 months for reports with positive vs 7.6 months for reports with negative results (P =.44). Time to publication also was not associated with any marker of study quality or study characteristic. CONCLUSIONS: Among 133 published controlled trials, time to publication was not associated with statistical significance, methodologic quality, or other study characteristics.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗