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.

Writing Accountability Groups Are a Tool for Academic Success: The Obesity Health Disparities PRIDE Program.

Introduction: The current hypercompetitive extramural funding environment in the United States emphasizes the critical need for effective research training programs that focus not only on grantsmanship, but on skill development across the full range of research activities, culminating in writing research results for publication. Using Writing Accountability Groups (WAG), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) funded Obesity Health Disparities (OHD) PRIDE is one of the few research training and mentoring programs that places an equal focus on scientific writing and grant writing. This article reports on the utility of WAGs for OHD PRIDE mentees. Method: Participants included 14 of 26 individuals who were fellows in the OHD PRIDE research training and mentoring program. A typical WAG has between four and eight members who meet for one hour each week over a 10-week period and commit a priori to attend at least 70% of the sessions. Summary statistics were produced to characterize number of peer-reviewed publications, grants, years in academic rank, and category of current academic rank, barriers to frequency of writing, and duration of writing. Results from pre- and post-WAG surveys were compared to determine the overall impact of the WAG. The study period discussed in this article took place between January and December 2017 and included data from three 10-week cycles beginning in February, May, and September. Results: Fifty-three percent of OHD PRIDE participants successfully completed at least one 10-week WAG cycle. The WAGs did not have a statistically significant impact on either the frequency of writing or the duration of writing. However, the majority of the participants who successfully completed at least one WAG cycle reported that they either maintained or increased their frequency or duration of writing. Conclusion: By providing a structured approach to developing and/or enhancing a practice of consistent writing, time management skills, and collaborative relationships, the WAG has promise for enhancing scientific writing skills for many trainees and early-career faculty. Longer term follow-up is needed to more fully assess the potential impact of WAGs.

Primed to comply: Individual participant data sharing statements on ClinicalTrials.gov.

In June 2017, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced a requirement that authors reporting the results of clinical trials to journals that follow ICMJE recommendations must include an individual participant data (IPD) sharing statement with manuscripts submitted after 01 July 2018. Additionally, all new clinical trials for which enrollment began on or after 01 January 2019 must include a data sharing statement in the trial's publicly posted registration. This study sought to understand whether IPD sharing statements of clinical trials first registered on ClinicalTrials.gov before 01 January 2019 reflected comprehension of the expectations and a willingness to share. To establish baseline characteristics for the prevalence and quality of IPD sharing statements, we examined IPD sharing statements among 2,040 clinical trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov between 01 January 2018 and 06 June 2018. Two independent coders further analyzed the quality of the IPD sharing statements of trials whose registration records indicated the intent to share IPD. The vast majority of trials included in this study did not indicate an intent to share IPD (n = 1,928; 94.5%). Among the trials that did commit to sharing IPD (n = 112, 5.5%), significant variability existed in the content and structure of IPD sharing statements. The results of this study suggest that successful compliance with the IPD sharing statement requirements of the ICMJE will require further clarification, enhanced education, and outreach to investigators.

Recommendations for designing genetic test reports to be understood by patients and non-specialists.

Patients and non-specialist healthcare professionals are increasingly expected to understand and interpret the results of genetic or genomic testing. These results are currently reported using a variety of templates, containing different amounts, levels, and layouts of information. We set out to establish a set of recommendations for communicating genetic test results to non-expert readers. We employed a qualitative-descriptive study design with user-centred design principles, including a mixture of in-person semi-structured interviews and online questionnaires with patients, healthcare professionals and the general public. The resulting recommendations and example template include providing at-a-glance comprehension of what the test results mean for the patient; suggested next steps; and details of further information and support. Separation and inclusion of technical methodological details enhances non-specialists' understanding, while retaining important information for specialists and the patients' records. The recommendations address the high-level needs of patients and their non-specialist clinicians when receiving genetic test results. These recommendations provide a solid foundation for the major content and structure of reports, and we recommend further engagement with patients and clinicians to tailor reports to specific types of test and results.

Cómo analizar y escribir los resultados de una revisión sistemática / How to analyze and write the results of a systematic review

No disponible

La elaboración de la sección «Discusión» de artículos científicos originales. ¿Un reto para los docentes universitarios? / Development of the "Discussion" section in original research papers. A challenge for university teachers?

El artículo da cuenta de cómo los docentes universitarios, devenidos investigadores, históricamente han mostrado una especial preocupación por la redacción de artículos originales. Uno de los mayores retos que deben enfrentar en este empeño es la elaboración de la discusión, el corazón del manuscrito y la sección más compleja, donde se somete a prueba la fortaleza científica de un investigador. Se realizó un estudio observacional, descriptivo y transversal, orientado a presentar los resultados de la determinación de las principales dificultades de un grupo de docentes en la elaboración de la sección «Discusión» de artículos científicos. Los resultados muestran que todas las subcategorías experimentaron una reducción del porcentaje. Las limitaciones y fortalezas del estudio fue la subcategoría que mayor disminución tuvo, con un 21,1%. En relación con la selección del tiempo verbal para la redacción de los contenidos también experimentó una disminución de un 19,2% respecto a la primera revisión. El resto de las subcategorías experimentaron una reducción menor (entre un 1,9% y un 3,9%)

The article reports on how university teachers, aspiring researchers, have historically shown particular concern about writing original articles. One of the biggest challenges they face in this endeavour is the development of the discussion, the heart of the manuscript, as well as the most complex section, where the scientific strength of a researcher is put to the test. An observational, descriptive, and cross-sectional study was carried out to present the results of the identification of the main problems of a group of teachers in developing the "Discussion" section of scientific articles. The results show that all subcategories experienced a percentage reduction. The limitations and strengths of the study was the subcategory that had the greatest decrease, with 21.1%. In relation to the selection of the verb tense for the writing of the contents also experienced a decrease of 19.2%, with respect to the first revision. The remaining sub-categories experienced a smaller reduction (between 1.9% and 3.9%)