CAse-BAsed REview sTandards (CABARET): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.

The publication landscape for case reports has undergone a significant shift, with many high-impact journals deprioritizing or ceasing their publication altogether. This trend has led to the emergence of case-based reviews as an alternative to traditional case reports. Several factors drive this shift. Case-based reviews offer a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature compared to single case reports. They employ systematic search methodologies, reducing the risk of excluding relevant data, and providing robust evidence. From a publisher's perspective, case-based reviews have a greater potential for citation. While recommendations exist for writing traditional case reports, such as the CAse REports (CARE) guidelines, there is a lack of published recommendations for composing case-based reviews. This review aims to address this gap by providing guidance on drafting high-quality case-based reviews.

Impact of Performing Medical Writing/Publishing Workshops: A Systematic Survey and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: Proficiency in medical writing and publishing is essential for medical researchers. Workshops can play a valuable role in addressing these issues. However, there is a lack of systematic summaries of evidence on the evaluation of their impacts. So, in this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate all articles published on the impact of such workshops worldwide. Methods: We searched Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Medline, ISI Web of Science, ERIC database, and grey literature with no language, time period, or geographical location limitations. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, before-after studies, surveys, and program evaluation and development studies were included. We performed a meta-analysis on data related to knowledge increase after the workshops and descriptively reported the evaluation of other articles that did not have sufficient data for a meta-analysis. All analyses were performed using Stata software, version 15.0. Results: Of 23 040 reports, 222 articles underwent full-text review, leading to 45 articles reporting the impacts of workshops. Overall, the reports on the impact of such workshops were incomplete or lacked the necessary precision to draw acceptable conclusions. The workshops were sporadic, and researchers used their own method of assessment. Meta-analyses of the impact on the knowledge showed that workshops could nonsignificantly increase the mean or percentage of participants' knowledge. Conclusion: In the absence of systematic academic courses on medical writing/publishing, workshops are conducted worldwide; however, reports on educational activities during such workshops, the methods of presentations, and their curricula are incomplete and vary. Their impact is not evaluated using standardized methods, and no valid and reliable measurement tools have been employed for these assessments.

Artificial intelligence in scientific medical writing: Legitimate and deceptive uses and ethical concerns.

The debate surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing has already attracted significant interest in medical and life sciences. While AI can undoubtedly expedite the process of manuscript creation and correction, it raises several criticisms. The crossover between AI and health sciences is relatively recent, but the use of AI tools among physicians and other scientists who work in the life sciences is growing very fast. Within this whirlwind, it is becoming essential to realize where we are heading and what the limits are, including an ethical perspective. Modern conversational AIs exhibit a context awareness that enables them to understand and remember any conversation beyond any predefined script. Even more impressively, they can learn and adapt as they engage with a growing volume of human language input. They all share neural networks as background mathematical models and differ from old chatbots for their use of a specific network architecture called transformer model [1]. Some of them exceed 100 terabytes (TB) (e.g., Bloom, LaMDA) or even 500 TB (e.g., Megatron-Turing NLG) of text data, the 4.0 version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was trained with nearly 45 TB, but stays updated by the internet connection and may integrate with different plugins that enhance its functionality, making it multimodal.

Variability of Guidelines and Disclosures for AI-Generated Content in Top Surgical Journals.

Background: When properly utilized, artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC) may improve virtually every aspect of research, from data gathering to synthesis. Nevertheless, when used inappropriately, the use of AIGC may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate information and introduce potential ethical concerns.Research Design: Cross-sectional. Study Sample: 65 top surgical journals. Data Collection: Each journals submission guidelines and portal was queried for guidelines regarding AIGC use.Results: We found that, in July 2023, 60% of the top 65 surgical journals had introduced guidelines for use, with more surgical journals (68%) introducing guidelines than surgical subspecialty journals (52.5%), including otolaryngology (40%). Furthermore, of the 39 with guidelines, only 69.2% gave specific use guidelines. No included journal, at the time of analysis, explicitly disallowed AIGC use.Conclusions: Altogether, this data suggests that while many journals have quickly reacted to AIGC usage, the quality of such guidelines is still variable. This should be pre-emptively addressed within academia.

Insights of Healthcare Professionals into Medical Writing Support at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The demand for medical writing is on the rise in academic and medical entities worldwide. However, a huge disparity in the perception of professional medical writing arises from inadequate education and regularity in service quality and potential ethical challenges. Hence, we aimed to examine the knowledge, attitude, and perception toward professional medical writing support (PMWS) of healthcare professionals at King Fahad Medical City (KFMC). METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire that was validated for its accuracy and clarity by an expert panel in academic integrity. The self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 200 healthcare professionals from a broad range of specialties throughout KFMC. The socio-demographic characteristics and healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions were recorded. The responses were quantitatively evaluated using a 5-point Likert Scale and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 25 (IBM, New York, United States). RESULTS: 162 healthcare professionals in KFMC filled in the questionnaire completely. Most respondents agreed that it was acceptable for medical writers to help with writing publications and that they offered a valuable service. Concerning association with socio-demographic characteristics, the mean score of knowledge was found to be significantly related to those with age ≥45 years (p<0.001), PhD degree (p=0.044), >5 years of research experience (p<0.001), and being a faculty/consultant (p=0.005). No significant association was found with the mean total score of attitude. Participants having >5 years of research experience were found to have a higher significant level of perception (p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights that PMWS is relatively well-utilized and perceived positively within KFMC. There is a need for further research and education of ethics regarding the use of PMWS.

Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach.

ChatGPT, a large language model, has gained significance in medical writing, particularly in case reports that document the course of an illness. This article explores the integration of ChatGPT and how ChatGPT shapes the process, product, and politics of medical writing in the real world. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on case reports utilizing ChatGPT and indexed in PubMed, encompassing publication information. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis was conducted to categorize the applications and limitations of ChatGPT and the publication trend of application categories. A total of 66 case reports utilizing ChatGPT were identified, with a predominant preference for the online version and English input by the authors. The prevalent application categories were information retrieval and content generation. Notably, this trend remained consistent across different months. Within the subset of 32 articles addressing ChatGPT limitations in case report writing, concerns related to inaccuracies and a lack of clinical context were prominently emphasized. This pointed out the important role of clinical thinking and professional expertise, representing the foundational tenets of medical education, while also accentuating the distinction between physicians and generative artificial intelligence.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools for Research by Medical Students: A Narrative Review.

With the advent of the era of digitalization, a new door has opened for the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools/algorithms that can help analyse the huge amount of data uploaded onto the cloud. AI-based tools/algorithms have created a niche in the field of research. AI has enabled researchers and practitioners to access and evaluate an enormous number of scientific papers more effectively. This can link similar studies from the past and highlight research gaps, thus accelerating the literature review, evidence generation, and knowledge discovery process. Medical students can obtain help from various AI-based solutions for literature organization and citations. These tools/algorithms facilitate secure information exchange, collaborative research efforts, and communication among multiple research centres. However, AI-driven research requires the guidance and supervision of human experts for better accuracy, coherence, and credibility of the content entering scientific databases. The key objective of this review is to discuss and evaluate various AI-based tools/algorithms and their key features that can assist medical students in medical research.

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.

Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed.

In the competitive arena of medical publishing, manuscript rejection remains a significant barrier to disseminating research findings. This editorial delves into the multifaceted nature of manuscript rejection, elucidating common reasons and proposing actionable strategies for authors to enhance their chances of acceptance. Key rejection factors include a mismatch with journal scope, lack of novelty, methodological flaws, inconclusive results, ethical issues, poor presentation, data inaccessibility, author misconduct, and plagiarism. Ethical lapses, such as lacking informed consent, or submissions fraught with grammatical errors, further doom manuscripts. In addressing these pitfalls, authors are advised to ensure content originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clear presentation. Aligning the manuscript with the journal's audience, scope, and editorial standards is crucial, as is professional conduct and responsiveness to feedback. Leveraging technological tools for citation management, grammar checking, and plagiarism detection can also significantly bolster manuscript quality. Ultimately, understanding and addressing common rejection reasons can empower authors to improve their submissions, contributing to the advancement of medical knowledge and their professional growth.

Scientific writing quality of theses in Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Bamako (Mali).

AIM: To describe the scientific editorial quality of practice theses defended at the Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy of Bamako (Mali), during the period 2016-2018. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted on practice theses in health science, defended between 2016 and 2018, and the electronic version of which was available at the libraries of the Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy in Bamako. An adjusted STROBE grid was used to measure a scientific editorial conformity score for 18 iso-weighted items of the IMRaD structure (i.e. a total of 18 points). In this way, the scientific editorial quality of practice theses in health sciences was judged to be highly conform (14-18 points), fairly conform (9-13 points), poorly conform (5-8 points), or not conform (<5 points). An ordinal logistic regression model was used to identify determining factors independently associated with the scientific editorial quality of the health sciences practice thesis, with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 534 practice theses in health sciences were included in this study, whose scientific editorial quality was judged to be highly or fairly conform (12.2%), poorly conform (43.1%) or not conform (44.8%). These standards scientific editorial conformity, which was higher in a "Medicine" thesis than in a "Pharmacy" thesis (ORa=2.45; IC95% [1.62-3.27], p<=0.05), was attributed to the supervisor's membership of a research structure (ORa=2.88; IC95% [1.6-3.2]; p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The research methodology profile of the practice health sciences thesis supervisor and the thesis section are associated with scientific editorial standard with the IMRaD.

AI vs academia: Experimental study on AI text detectors' accuracy in behavioral health academic writing.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models continue to expand in both access and capability. As these models have evolved, the number of academic journals in medicine and healthcare which have explored policies regarding AI-generated text has increased. The implementation of such policies requires accurate AI detection tools. Inaccurate detectors risk unnecessary penalties for human authors and/or may compromise the effective enforcement of guidelines against AI-generated content. Yet, the accuracy of AI text detection tools in identifying human-written versus AI-generated content has been found to vary across published studies. This experimental study used a sample of behavioral health publications and found problematic false positive and false negative rates from both free and paid AI detection tools. The study assessed 100 research articles from 2016-2018 in behavioral health and psychiatry journals and 200 texts produced by AI chatbots (100 by "ChatGPT" and 100 by "Claude"). The free AI detector showed a median of 27.2% for the proportion of academic text identified as AI-generated, while commercial software Originality.AI demonstrated better performance but still had limitations, especially in detecting texts generated by Claude. These error rates raise doubts about relying on AI detectors to enforce strict policies around AI text generation in behavioral health publications.

Trends in authorship in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 1981-2020.

BACKGROUND: The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020). RESULTS: The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374). CONCLUSIONS: There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary.

Nurses engaging with referral letters and discharge summaries: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To investigate the ways that nurses engage with referral letters and discharge summaries, and the qualities of these documents they find valuable for safe and effective practice. DESIGN: This study comprised a qualitative, case-study design within a constructivist paradigm using convenience sampling. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with nurses to investigate their practices relating to referral letters and discharge summaries. Data collection also involved nurses' examination and evaluation of a diverse range of 10 referral letters and discharge summaries from medical records at two Australian hospitals through focus-group sessions. The data were transcribed and analysed inductively. RESULTS: In all, 67 nurses participated in interviews or focus groups. Nurses indicated they used referral letters and discharge summaries to inform their work when caring for patients at different times throughout their hospitalisation. These documents assisted them with verbal handovers, to enable them to educate patients about their condition and treatment and to provide a high standard of care. The qualities of referral letters and discharge summaries that they most valued were language and communication, an awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information. CONCLUSION: Nurses relied on referral letters and discharge summaries to ensure safe and effective patient care. They used these documents to enhance their verbal handovers, contribute to patient care and to educate the patient about their condition and treatment. They identified several qualities of these documents that assisted them in maintaining patient safety including clarity and conciseness of information. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: It is important that referral letters and discharge summaries are written clearly, concisely and comprehensively because nurses use them as key sources of evidence in planning and delivering care, and in communicating with other health professionals in relaying goals of care and implementing treatment plans. IMPACT: Nurses reported that they regularly used referral letters and discharge summaries as valuable sources of evidence throughout their patients' hospitalisation. The qualities of these documents which they most valued were language and communication styles, awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information. This research has important impact on the patient experience in relation to encouraging effective referral letter and discharge summary writing. REPORTING METHOD: We have adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines through the SRQR reporting method. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Evaluation of Author Instructions for Inclusive Language Guidance in Highly Cited English Language Medical Journals.

BACKGROUND: Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are at the core of publication ethics, and language around DEI has been shown to affect patient outcomes. Inclusive language is an important piece of effective communication and is one way to demonstrate and foster a welcoming, respectful, and accessible environment. Non-inclusive terminology in research may represent implicit bias, which is not typically corrected through introspection; thus, a systematic approach is needed in scientific writing. The prevalence of inclusive language guidance in leading medical journals is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: Investigators assess the prevalence and quality of inclusive language guidelines in author instructions in highly cited English language medical journals. DESIGN: A cross-sectional review of author instructions from a convenience sample of 100 highly cited medical journals was completed in January 2023. SUBJECTS: Each journal's author instructions were reviewed for presence of inclusive language guidelines for manuscript submissions. MAIN MEASURES: Guidelines that included specific examples of inclusive language were defined as "strong." Author instructions were also reviewed for the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, and each journal's publisher and impact factor (IF) were recorded. KEY RESULTS: The 100 journals reviewed had an IF range of 3.0-202.7 with a median IF = 19.5 (IQR 11.95, 38.68), and 28 unique publishers were represented. Inclusive language guidance was provided in 23% of medical journals reviewed. Of those, 20 (86.9%) provided strong guidance. Seven journals also recommended use of the SAGER checklist. CONCLUSION: Significant gaps still exist in ensuring use of inclusive language in medical journals.

Writing in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases. Dos and Don'ts!

Too many articles are still rejected by scientific medical journals due to lack of preparation of the manuscript and of knowledge of the modern editorial rules that govern scientific medical writing. Therefore, the editorial board of the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Heads & Neck Diseases summarized studies published by its members since 2020 in the columns of the scientific journal of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology and the International Francophone Society of Otorhinolaryngology and data from the PubMed indexed literature dedicated to scientific medical writing in otolaryngology in the 21st century. The authors hope that this review, in the form of a list of "Dos and Don'ts", will provide authors with a practical guide facilitating publication of rigorous, reproducible and transparent scientific studies, in accordance with the movement toward better science that society as a whole has been fighting for since the beginning of this century.

Increasing use of EQUATOR guidelines in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022: A SWiM review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of EQUATOR guidelines in scientific articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022. The aim was also to translate the most widely used guidelines into French, in order to promote their dissemination and use in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery. METHOD: The SWiM guidelines were used. Articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed bibliographic database. Editorials, Letters to the Editor and "What is your diagnosis" articles that did not meet any EQUATOR guidelines were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 149 eligible published articles, 21.5% (n=32/149) mentioned use of such a guideline. Guideline use by the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases author community progressed from 0% in 2020 to 8% in 2021 and 63% in 2022. CONCLUSION: The analysis carried out in this article and the availability of the French version of the seven EQUATOR guidelines most widely used in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases could stimulate application and compliance by authors who submit their work to the journal of the French and international French-speaking societies of otorhinolaryngology.