Effective hands-on teaching strategy on participants' confidence in medical writing and publishing: A before-after study.

Proficiency in medical writing is crucial for disseminating reports of medical studies. The impact of workshops in this regard on participants' confidence is a subject of debate. We assessed the impact of a hands-on workshop on participants' confidence in medical writing. Participants of a 2-day "learning-by-doing" workshop held at McMaster University participated in this before-after study. We used a unique, reliable, and valid tool comprising two domains of confidence in medical writing and using English language before and after receiving the educational intervention. Of 25 participants, 21 completed the instrument before and after the workshop. Typical participants were female, and students in their 30s, who had not attended a prior workshop. The mean (95% CI) increase in the participants' confidence for domain 1 was 15.3 (10.5, 20.1), for domain 2 was 16.8 (9.8, 23.8), and for the total score was 32.1 (20.9, 43.2) (all P<0.001). Between-subgroup analyses showed the score increase was significantly higher in participants with less than 5 years of experience in medical research. The workshop had a positive impact on enhancing participants' confidence in writing skills, including using active verbs, crafting short sentences, summarizing main findings, and adhering to checklists like CONSORT. Hands-on medical writing workshops can boost participants' confidence in writing medical articles and using optimal English language. Targeting junior researchers and graduate students could result in a better outcome. Emphasizing the writing areas where participants achieved higher score changes might yield better outcomes for such workshops.

Letters generated by ChatGPT: Author who?

AIM: ChatGPT's role in medical writing is a topic of discussion. I experimented whether ChatGPT almost automatically generates Correspondence or Letter addressed to a "translated" article, and thereby wish to arouse discussion regarding ChatGPT use in medical writing. METHODS: I input an English article of mine into ChatGPT, tasking it with generating an English Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Next, I tasked ChatGPT with translating the manuscript addressed to from English-French-Spanish-German. Then, I once again tasked ChatGPT with generating an English Disagreement Letter addressed to a German manuscript (triplicate translated manuscript) (Letter 2). RESULTS: Letters 1 and 2 are readable and reasonable, shooting the point that the author (myself) felt as the weakness of the article. Letters addressed to French (single translation) and to Spanish (double translation) and longer Letters (corresponding to Letters 1 and 2) are also readable, and thus stand. CONCLUSIONS: Solely based on this experiment, one may be able to write a letter even without understanding the meaning of the paper being addressed, let alone the language of the paper. Although this humble experiment does not conclude anything, I plea for a comprehensive discussion on the implications of these findings.

Guías para la elaboración de manuscritos y unas pinceladas de lectura crítica / Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal

El proceso de investigación biomédica debe seguir unos criterios de calidad en su diseño y elaboración que garanticen que los resultados son creíbles y fiables. Una vez finalizado, llega el momento de escribir un artículo para su publicación. Este debe presentar con suficiente detalle, y de forma clara y transparente, toda la información del trabajo de investigación realizado. De esta forma, los lectores, tras una lectura crítica de lo publicado, podrán juzgar la validez y la relevancia del estudio, y si lo consideran, utilizar los hallazgos. Con el objetivo de mejorar la descripción del proceso de investigación para su publicación, se han desarrollado una serie de guías que, de forma sencilla y estructurada, orientan a los autores a la hora de elaborar un manuscrito. Se presentan en forma de lista, diagrama de flujo, o texto estructurado, y son una ayuda inestimable a la hora de escribir un artículo. Este artículo presenta las guías de elaboración de manuscritos de los diseños más habituales, con sus listas de verificación.(AU)

The biomedical research process must follow certain quality criteria in its design and development to ensure that the results are credible and reliable. Once completed, the time comes to write an article for publication. The article must present in sufficient detail, and in a clear and transparent manner, all the information on the research work that has been carried out. In this way, readers, after a critical reading of the published content, will be able to judge the validity and relevance of the study and, if they so wish, make use of the findings. In order to improve the description of the research process for publication, a series of guidelines have been developed which, in a simple and structured way, guide authors in the preparation of a manuscript. They are presented in the form of a list, flowchart, or structured text, and are an invaluable aid when writing an article. This article presents the reporting guidelines for the most common designs along with the corresponding checklists.(AU)

The impact of textual elements on the comprehensibility of drug label instructions (DLIs): A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Correct interpretation of drug labels instructions (DLIs) is needed for safe use and better adherence to prescribed drugs. DLIs are often too difficult for patients, especially for those with limited health literacy. What is yet unknown, is how specific textual elements in DLIs (e.g., the presentation of numbers, or use of medical jargon) and patients' health literacy skills are related to the comprehension of DLIs. In order to provide concrete directions for health professionals on how to optimize drug prescriptions, we performed a systematic review to summarize the available research findings on which textual elements facilitate or hinder the correct interpretation of DLIs in relation to patients' health literacy. METHOD: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and Smartcat (until April 2019) to identify studies investigating textual elements that facilitate or hinder the correct interpretation of DLIs in relation to patients' health literacy. RESULTS: A total of 434 studies were identified of which 28 studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that textual elements contributing to the correct interpretation of DLIs were: using explicit time periods in dosage instructions, using plain language, presenting numbers in a numerical format, and providing DLIs in patients' native language. Multistep instructions per instruction line, using abbreviations and medical jargon seem to hinder the correct interpretation of DLIs. Although health literacy was taken into account in a majority of the studies, none of them assessed the effectiveness of specific textual elements on patients' comprehensibility of DLIs. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, we provide an overview of textual elements that contribute to the correct interpretation of DLIs. Optimizing the textual instruction on drug labels may increase the safety and adherence to prescribed drugs, taking into account that a significant proportion of patients has low health literacy.

How accurate is the neurosurgery literature? A review of references.

BACKGROUND: The reference list is an important part of academic manuscripts. The goal of this study is to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of neurosurgery. METHODS: This study examines four major peer-reviewed neurosurgery journals, chosen based on their clinical impact factor: Neurosurgery, J Neurosurg, World Neurosurg, and Acta Neurochir. For each of the four journals, five articles from each of the journal's 12 issues published in 2019 were randomly selected using an online generator. This resulted in a total of 240 articles, 60 from each journal. Additionally, from each article's list of references, one reference was again randomly selected and checked for a citation or quotation error. The chi-square test was used to analyze the association between the occurrence of citation and quotation errors and the presence of hypothesized risk factors that could impact reference accuracy. RESULTS: 62.1% of articles had a minor citation error, 8.33% had a major citation error, 12.1% had a minor quotation error, and 5.8% of articles had a major quotation error. Overall, Acta Neurochir presented with the fewest quotation errors compared with the other journals evaluated. The only association between the frequency of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes was with the length of the bibliography. Surprisingly, this correlation indicated that the articles with longer reference lists had fewer citation errors (p < 0.01). Statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the journals of publication (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in neurosurgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this analysis illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

Expresiones y criterios mejorables en la redacción de informes de evaluación y posicionamiento terapéutico / Expressions and criteria that could be improved in the writing of reports for drug evaluation and therapeutic positioning

En la revisión de borradores de informes para evaluación y posicionamiento de nuevos fármacos en un entorno multidisciplinar, se observan determinados errores de expresión o criterio que se repiten con frecuencia. Principalmente, están relacionados con la consideración de “diferencias” o tendencias no significativas, abuso de la reducción relativa del riesgo, errores en la valoración de resultados por subgrupos sin calcular la interacción estadística, confusiones en la interpretación de las comparaciones indirectas, sobrevaloración de la relevancia clínica con variables subclínicas y afirmaciones sesgadas en el apartado de seguridad, entre otros. También se observa a menudo ambigüedad o inhibición en el posicionamiento, especialmente en situaciones de precariedad en la evidencia disponible. El presente trabajo expone de forma sintética tales errores, aclara algunos términos comunes y propone expresiones o criterios alternativos que se consideran preferibles, con el fin de ofrecer una evaluación para la toma de decisiones en beneficio de los pacientes. (AU)

In the review of reports for evaluation and positioning of new drugs in a multidisciplinary setting, some usual errors of expression or criteria are observed. Most of them are related to the consideration of «differences» or non-significant trends, abuse of the relative risk reduction, errors in the assessment of results by subgroups without calculating the statistical interaction, misinterpretation of indirect comparisons, excess in the assessment of clinical relevance with subclinical variables and biased statements in the safety section, among others. Ambiguity or inhibition in positioning is also often observed, especially in situations of precariousness in the available evidence. This work summarizes such errors, clarifies some common terms and proposes alternative expressions or criteria that are considered preferable, in order to offer evaluations for decision-making focused on the benefit of patients. (AU)

Update on the global neurosurgery movement: A systematic review of international vernacular, research trends, and authorship.

In 2015, key global and neurosurgical organizations increased collaboration to improve neurosurgical care access, delivery, and outcomes, particularly in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs); sparking what has been termed the global neurosurgery movement. The authors sought to assess trends in usage of the term 'global neurosurgery' in academic literature with particular focus on author affiliations, world regions most frequently discussed, and topics of research performed. A PubMed search for articles indexed as 'global neurosurgery' was completed yielding 277 articles which met inclusion criteria. It was found that over time, use of the term 'global neurosurgery' has increased, with increasing growth notable starting in the year 2008 and continuing into October 2019. Statistical comparisons showed authors with affiliated global neurosurgery centers were more likely to publish studies related to the continent of Africa (47.4% vs 15.9%, p < 0.001), and less likely to focus on countries in Asia (2.6% vs 20.9%, p = 0.023). Use of the term 'global neurosurgery' in the article abstract/title/keywords was associated with focus on LMICs (18.6% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.006). Use of the term 'global neurosurgery' was associated with workforce and capacity as research topics (41.9% vs 22.6%, p = 0.036). While fairly new, the global neurosurgery movement has seen a rapid increase in publications utilizing the term 'global neurosurgery.' Articles frequently have focused on collaborative, targeted workforce capacity building in LMICs. We encourage the development of more global neurosurgery academic centers, especially in non-USA countries, to continue this momentum.

How to Create a Great Radiology Report.

The radiology report represents the sum of a radiologist's highest level of synthesis and insight into a patient's condition. It is the most important product that radiologists generate to help direct patient care. Despite the self-evident importance of clear and effective radiology reporting, radiologists usually receive little or no formal reporting education during training. Instead, it is learned in a piecemeal and often indirect fashion through occasional correction and imitating the reports of other radiologists. The audience of the radiology report extends far beyond the ordering provider and includes patients and their families, medical support staff, subspecialty providers, other radiologists, and research interests. Creating a report that fulfills the needs of this diverse group is a formidable if not quixotic ambition. However, there are certain key principles to reporting the imaging findings, impression, and recommendations that serve as a guide and promote careful consideration about how reports are understood. The findings section should emphasize short, informative, and factual observations while avoiding inappropriate interpretation, excessive use of terms of perception, and redundancy. The impression is the thoughtful synthesis of the meaning of the findings leading to a diagnosis, a differential diagnosis, and management recommendations. Creating a clear and impactful impression allows radiologists to provide the highest level of clinical care and direction but takes time and effort beyond simply restating the findings. The impression should use language that is understandable, memorable, and actionable. Reporting skills require ongoing attention and must adapt to the evolving practice patterns and communication styles in medicine. ©RSNA, 2020.