An update on the access to inpatient rehabilitation facilities across Tunisia in 2023.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the growing global need and the complexity of health conditions, an intensive rehabilitation in inpatient departments is fundamental. Yet, in Tunisia, the distribution of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities is not illustrated. AIM: To perform an update concerning the rehabilitation's beds-ratio /1000 Tunisian-inhabitants in 2023. METHODS: Data were collected from the Tunisian Ministry of Health, the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, and the National Institute of Statistics websites. RESULTS: The findings revealed a total number of rehabilitations' beds 132 among a total of 20000 hospital beds with a rehabilitations' beds-ratio equal to 0.01/1000 inhabitants. Only three Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities were identified in Tunisia covering the Greater Tunis, North East, and Center east districts. There was inequity of distribution since the beds ratio is 1.07/1000 in the North east, 0.02/1000 in the Greater Tunis and 0 in the North West and the South of Tunisia. CONCLUSION: This update highlighted the alarmingly low rehabilitation's beds-ratio in Tunisia, coupled to a significant regional disparity. Increasing beds in the existing Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and extending outpatient rehabilitation departments with inpatient units might be considered urgent solutions.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work. AIM: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. METHOD: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process. RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.