En pos de la belleza. Cuidado de rostro y cabellos en el corpus textual hebreo de medicina / [In pursuit of beauty. Face and hair care in the Hebrew textual corpus of medicine]

Este trabajo presenta el resultado preliminar de una investigación en curso sobre tres géneros o tipologías textuales hebreas de (o con) contenido cosmético poco estudiados hasta ahora: recetarios, libros de medicina general y recetas sueltas. El análisis se ha basado en una muestra de textos concretos, con el fin de que sirvan como estudio de caso, en los que nos hemos centrado en las recetas y procedimientos dedicados a rostro y cabellos, por los que todos ellos revelan una preocupación notoria. Por un lado, se han examinado los diversos propósitos de las recetas, así como los ingredientes, técnicas y procedimientos. Por otro, hemos prestado atención a cómo se articulan el conocimiento y las técnicas cosméticas en distintos contextos médicos que no siempre tienen como objetivo aparente la salud femenina pero que se desarrollan en el marco de los discursos sobre la diferencia sexual y en la intersección de género, clase social y etnicidad. (AU)

Los aspectos éticos en la redacción del manuscrito científico / Ethical aspects in writing a scientific manuscript

La publicación de un manuscrito científico constituye uno de los puntos clave de la producción científica, especialmente en el ámbito biomédico, donde los resultados de nuestras investigaciones pueden ser trasladados rápidamente a la práctica clínica asistencial con el objeto de mejorar la salud y el bienestar de la sociedad. Toda investigación biomédica debe cumplir con unos estándares metodológicos, éticos y legales, para que el conocimiento generado sea considerado válido. El manuscrito deberá reflejar claramente el cumplimiento de estos estándares, y será exigible por los propios editores de las revistas biomédicas. Existen diversas guías y orientaciones para los autores de los manuscritos biomédicos. No obstante, estos documentos inciden principalmente en aspectos relacionados con la calidad científica, obviando generalmente los aspectos éticos. El presente trabajo ofrece indicaciones y argumentos a los potenciales autores para redactar el apartado correspondiente a los aspectos éticos, que se concretan principalmente en el respeto a los códigos bioéticos vigentes y la aprobación del comité de ética de la investigación, el procedimiento de consentimiento informado y, finalmente, las medidas de protección de la confidencialidad. (AU)

Publication of a scientific manuscript is one of the key points of scientific production, especially in the biomedical field, where the results of our research can be quickly transferred to clinical care practice in order to improve the health and well-being of the population. All biomedical research must comply with methodological, ethical and legal standards, so that the knowledge generated is considered valid. The manuscript must clearly exhibit compliance with these standards, which will be enforceable by the editors of the biomedical journals themselves. There are various guides and guidelines for the authors of biomedical manuscripts; however, these documents mainly affect aspects related to scientific quality, generally ignoring ethical aspects. This paper offers indications and arguments for potential authors to write the section on ethical aspects, which are mainly specified as related to current bioethical codes and approval by the research ethics committee, the informed consent procedure and, finally, confidentiality protection measures. (AU)

What Cell Press reviewers think about innovative peer review models: George Burslem, Dan Larson, Susanne Lens, and Victor Greiff.

In this Q&A, Cell Press Community Review Product Manager Matt Pavlovich talks to George Burslem, Dan Larson, Susanne Lens, and Victor Greiff about their experience reviewing manuscripts submitted to Community Review. These scientists share their thoughts on Community Review and other emerging peer review paradigms.

Stigmatizing Terminology for Outcomes and Processes (STOP) in Alcohol Research: A Meta-epidemiologic Assessment of Language Used in Clinical Trial Publications.

INTRODUCTION: Stigmatizing language used to describe patients and medical conditions is associated with poorer health outcomes. A recent investigation showed that approximately 80% of medical literature focused on alcohol use disorder (AUD) contained stigmatizing terms related to individuals; however, the quantification of stigmatizing terminology for outcomes and processes (STOP) among AUD research is unknown. Thus, our primary objective was to evaluate publications of clinical trials for their inclusion of STOP. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed for AUD clinical trials between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate manner by 2 investigators. We searched the full text of included manuscripts for STOP. We reported the frequency and percentage of manuscripts with STOP and individual terms. We evaluated associations between STOP usage and several clinical trial characteristics via logistic regression. RESULTS: Our search returned 1552 articles, which were then randomized and the first 500 were screened for inclusion. Of 147 included articles, 115 (78.2%) included STOP. The most common STOP were "drop out" (38.78%; 57/147), "relapse" (36.05%; 53/ 147), and "adherent, nonadherence" (35.37%; 52/147). No significant associations were found between STOP usage and trial characteristics. DISCUSSION: STOP was found in a majority of AUD clinical trial publications. As AUD is highly stigmatized, steps should be taken to eliminate usage of STOP in literature pertaining to AUD treatments. Many stigmatizing terms can be replaced by person-centered, more clinically accurate terms to further combat AUD stigma.

Distribución geográfica y brecha de género en la revisión por pares de una revista científica biomédica en Latinoamérica / Geographic distribution and gender gap in the peer review of a Latin American biomedical scientific journal

La revisión por pares es un proceso importante al permitir tomar decisiones previas a la publicación de un artículo. Sin embargo, existe escasa información en revistas científicas de Latinoamérica sobre los profesionales que participan en estos procesos. Este trabajo se propuso determinar la distribución geográfica y de género en la revisión por pares realizada en la Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública. Se analizaron las listas de agradecimiento de quienes participaron en la revisión por pares de esta revista desde el año 2010 hasta el 2017. El país de procedencia se identificó a partir de la afiliación institucional, mencionada inicialmente por los revisores, y para la identificación del género se utilizaron los nombres. En caso de existir duda con el género se realizó una búsqueda de imágenes y de perfiles académicos públicos disponibles en Internet. Se encontraron 1 628 menciones de agradecimientos a profesionales que participaron en la revisión por pares; el 60,4 por ciento (n = 983) fueron procedentes del extranjero, principalmente de España, México, Chile, Colombia y Argentina. El 71,1 por ciento (n = 1158) fueron revisores hombres y el 28,9 por ciento (n = 470) revisoras. según la procedencia de las revisoras, el 35,0 por ciento (n = 344) fueron del extranjero y el 19,6 por ciento (n = 126) de Perú; y en los revisores hombres el 65,0 por ciento fueron del extranjero y el 80,6 por ciento de Perú. La revisión por pares en una revista científica biomédica en Perú fue realizada principalmente por profesionales de otros países de habla hispana. Existe una brecha de género que es mayor para la participación de revisoras de Perú(AU)

Peer review is an important process that makes it possible to take decisions before the publication of an article. However, little information is available in Latin American scientific journals about the professionals involved in this process. The purpose of the study was to determine the geographic and gender distribution of peer review in the Peruvian Journal of Experimental Medicine and Public Health. Data about peer reviewers were obtained from the acknowledgements sections of journal issues published from 2010 to 2017. The country of origin was identified from the institutional affiliation reported by peer reviewers, and gender was derived from their proper names. In the event of doubt about a reviewer's gender, a search was conducted for images and public academic profiles available on the Internet. A total 1 628 acknowledgement mentions were found, 60.4percent (n = 983) of which referred to overseas reviewers, mainly from Spain, Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Argentina. 71.1percent (n = 1 158) of the reviewers were male and 28.9percent (n = 470) were female. 35.0percent (n = 344) of the female reviewers were foreign and 19.6percent (n = 126) were from Peru, whereas 65.0percent of the male reviewers were foreign and 80.6percent were from Peru. Peer review in a Peruvian biomedical scientific journal was mainly conducted by professionals from other Spanish-speaking countries. A gender gap was observed which is wider for participation of Peruvian female reviewers(AU)

Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. POPULATION: Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: first author's gender. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

Diez errores estadísticos frecuentes que tener en cuenta al escribir o revisar un artículo / Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript

Inspirados por esfuerzos más amplios para hacer más sólidas las conclusiones de la investigación científica, hemos recopilado una lista de algunos de los errores estadísticos más comunes que aparecen en la literatura científica. Los errores tienen su origen en diseños experimentales ineficaces, análisis inapropiados y/o razonamientos erróneos. Proporcionamos asesoramiento sobre la forma en que los autores, revisores y lectores pueden identificar y resolver estos errores y esperamos evitarlos en el futuro. Todos los errores pueden ser identificados en los distintos apartados de una publicación principalmente en material y métodos, resultados o conclusiones

No disponible

John Hatton's manuscript record of the surgical and pathological lectures given by Joseph Jordan, FRCS, in 1837-1838.

John Hatton, LSA MRCS FRCS MD (1817-1871), was apprenticed from 1833 to Joseph Jordan, MRCS FRCS (1787-1873), a well-known Manchester surgeon. Jordan, who had been teaching anatomy since 1814, closed his Mount Street Medical School in 1834 and was elected as surgeon to the Manchester Royal Infirmary in 1835. He continued to lecture on surgery and surgical pathology at the Infirmary, and sometimes at the Pine Street Medical School run by Thomas Turner, LSA FRCS (1793-1873). During 1837-38 Hatton transcribed and illustrated these lectures in a bound manuscript and also added notes and drawings in his personal copy of The Dublin Dissector. He gained his Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries (LSA) in 1836 and Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) in 1839 and set up in Manchester as surgeon from around 1840. This paper is based on three previously unrelated documents in the University of Manchester Archives: a handwritten catalogue of specimens in Jordan's Anatomy Museum, Hatton's annotated copy of The Dublin Dissector and his manuscript record of Jordan's lectures. These documents provide a valuable insight into medical education during the 1830s.

Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb: Hunain ibn Ishaq's historic medical text with a distinctive style of Islamic medical education.

The golden age of Islamic medicine (800 to 1300 CE) is a notable period in medical history. Medical education in this period of time was significant and systematic in Islamic territory. In the early Golden Age of Islamic Medicine, Abu Zayd Hunain ibn Ishaq al-'Ibadi, an exceptional scholar and translator, emerged. He was known as Johannitius in medieval Europe. Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb lil-Mutallimin (Questions on Medicine for Students) was written by Hunain ibn Ishaq. This book remains a definitive text on Islamic medicine and has been printed and published widely in Europe. Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb is written in the style of questions and answers which is distinct from the conventional writing style of medical books on Islamic medicine. The current article reviews Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb and its distinguishing style, the question and answer format. Today, the question-and-answer method is a popular method of medical education, and clinical teachers tend to use it in medical education because of the advantages it offers. The use of this method in Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb for education and examination of medical students by Hunain ibn Ishaq reflects a great improvisation in medical education and introduces him as the leading developer of the question-and-answer method in Islamic medical education.