REPORTING GUIDELINES AND CHECKLISTS TO IMPROVE MEDICAL WRITING

Authors

  • Ahmed Badar Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, University of Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Pobody’s nerfect. All of us sincerely work hard to make our research, articles and journals perfect, however no author, reviewer or editor can ever be ‘know all’ or ‘do all correct’. Quality control has been the main theme for all services over the last quarter of a century. The medical journalism was never an exception. The last two decades were especially important in the history of medical journalism as measures for quality control were developed, tested, standardised and applied. The products of these extraordinary efforts are various guidelines, checklists and flow diagrams that are now part and parcel of modern medical journalism. These tools make the task of authors, reviewers, and editors easy. They provide a systematic way by which authors know exactly how a particular manuscript is to be prepared, the reviewers make out what they are supposed to evaluate and the editors identify problems with submitted as well as reviewed or corrected manuscripts. Another valuable and highly recommended use of these materials is critical appraisal of published articles (journal clubs).

Identifying the relevant reporting guidelines, checklists and flow diagrams and following them in letter and spirit can ensure hassle free publication of our manuscripts, as all quality journals have (or are) implementing  them.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. The phrase was used for the first time by Cracked and Mad magazine in 1970’s. Mentioned at http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pobody%27s%20nerfect
2. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994;272(24):1926–31.
3. Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Call for comments on a proposal to improve reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature. Ann Intern Med 1994;121(11):894–5.
4. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276(8):637–9.
5. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(8):657–62.
6. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.
7. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185(5):263–7.
8. Toolkits. Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research. Available at http://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/ [Last Accessed on July 13, 2013]
9. The Cochrane Collaboration. Reporting guidelines. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/evidence-based-health-care/webliography/books/reporting [Accessed on July 13, 2013]
10. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. PLoSBiol 2010;8(6):e1000412. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412

Downloads

Published

30-06-2013

How to Cite

1.
Badar A. REPORTING GUIDELINES AND CHECKLISTS TO IMPROVE MEDICAL WRITING. Pak J Phsyiol [Internet]. 2013 Jun. 30 [cited 2024 Apr. 19];9(1):1-2. Available from: https://pjp.pps.org.pk/index.php/PJP/article/view/406