acknowledgments - springer978-1-4419-8234... · 2017-08-25 · acknowledgments any single-author...

Acknowledgments

Any single-author book, especially a “how to” work such

as this one, is the product of the writer’s life experiences,

the influence of professional colleagues, and the writings of

others whom I probably will never be meet in person.

In addition to my professional time in private practice

and later in academic medicine, my life experiences center

around my family: Anita D. Taylor, MA Ed, an accomplished

author and academician, honest critic, and sharp-eyed proof-

reader; our children Diana and Sharon; and our four grand-

children, Francesca (Frankie), Elizabeth (Masha), Jack, and

Anna (Annie).

I thank just some of the many physicians who, over the

years, have helped me better understand medicine, writ-

ing, and life. In no special order, these valued persons are:

Doctors Robin Hull, Bob Bomengen, Ray Friedman, Tom

Deutsch, John Saultz, Bill Toffler, Scott Fields, Eric Walsh,

Peter Goodwin, Ben Jones, Joe Scherger, Takashi Yamada,

Ryuki Kassai, John Kendall and Charles Visokay. Faculty

colleagues Rick Deyo and Matthew Thompson helped me

polish drafts of some parts of the book and, I earnestly hope,

avoid egregious errors. Such faults as there are—and there

surely are a few—are solely my doing.

I offer a special thanks to Coelleda O’Neil, who has assisted

with the manuscript preparation of my books for more than

two decades. In addition, I gratefully acknowledge the excel-

lent work of my Springer editor, Katharine Cacace.

Finally, I am grateful to the clinicians and scientists who

reported the case studies, systematic reviews, randomized

trials and other publications that provided the examples used

to support my advice about Medical Writing.

R.B. Taylor, Medical Writing: A Guide for Clinicians, Educators, and Researchers, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8234-6, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

329

Appendix 1. Glossary of Medical Writing Words and Phrases

Author Someone who has actively participated in preparation

of a paper or book, and who assumes intellectual responsi-

bility for its content. An archival author is an author who

assumes responsibility for maintaining research and other

records related to a published article, just in case questions

arise in the future.

Boolean logic An approach to relationships among search

terms, using AND, OR, and NOT. Boolean logic, named

for British philosopher and mathematician George Boole

(1815–1864), was an important building block in the develop-

ment of today’s digital computer.

Camera-ready copy Materials, generally figures, that do

not require typesetting and are suitable for photographic

reproduction as submitted. Complicated chemical structures

and mathematical formulas are generally best submitted as

camera-ready copy.

Caption See Legend.

Career topic The topic that you present in writing and in

lectures throughout your career, keeping up with all advances

in the field. For clinicians, this is most likely to be a disease

(such as hypertension), a clinical presentation (such as chest

pain), or a procedure (such as retinal surgery or minimally

invasive management of breast cancer).

Compositor The person who sets the type for an article as

it is being prepared for printing. A synonym is typesetter,

although technically type is no longer “set.”

331

332 APPendix 1. GlossAry of MedicAl WritinG Words And PhrAses

Copyeditor The person who makes needed improvements in

grammar and syntax, and then marks up a manuscript for the

printer. The copyeditor is generally employed by the publisher,

and often is the author’s “best friend” during production.

Copyright The legal right to publish, copy, sell, or otherwise

use a specific intellectual property.

Cover letter Also called a submission letter, the cover let-

ter is a document that should accompany every manuscript

submission to a journal, even if the submission is a Letter to

the Editor.

Direct costs In grant parlance, the phrase “direct costs”

refers to the price of salaries, equipment and supplies, as well

as miscellaneous expenses such as consultant fees and travel

related to the project. Also see indirect costs.

DOI An abbreviation for Digital Object Identifier, an alpha-

numeric label used to distinguish a publication online. For

example, the identifier doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.09.013

would lead the reader to an article by Leichtle et al. titled

“Does preoperative anemia adversely affect colon and rectal

surgery outcomes?” published in print in the February 2011

issue of the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

Duplicate or dual publication The unethical practice of

publishing the same data two or more times in different

journals.

Editor The editor holds the powerful position of deciding

which manuscripts are published and which “do not meet

our publication needs at this time.” There are also various

types of editor, especially in book publishing: acquisition

editors, development editors, production editors, associate

editors, and copyeditors.

Electronic journal An online version of a medical publica-

tion. At this time, most electronic medical journals are exten-

sions of print publications. In the future, there are likely to be

many freestanding electronic journals.

Funding preference A qualification in a Request for

Proposal–generally with a social intent such as improving

332

health care for the homeless or for pregnant women—that, if

included in the grant proposal and approved, add points to

the final grant review score, moving the application higher in

the funding queue.

Galley proofs, galleys A copy of typeset matter, lacking page

numbers, intended to be reviewed by the author before being

made into page proofs.

GIF Representing Graphic Interchange Format, a color

image compression algorithm.

Grey literature The locus of many trials that have not

achieved primary publication in scientific journals. Here

we find posters and research reports presented at scien-

tific congresses, with descriptions found in conference

abstract collections. The common thread among items in

the “grey literature” is that they are outside the purview of

conventional publishers. Thus, such items include material

produced in academics, government, business and industry

disseminated in electronic formats or out-or-the-mainstream

print sources.

Halftone A figure composed of shades of gray, usually a

“black and white” photograph or a shaded drawing.

Impact factor The total number of citations made for a

journal in a year for articles published in two previous years

divided by the number of citable articles published in these

years. It is used to judge the influence, and by inference the

quality, of a journal. See Chap. 5.

IMRAD An acronym that represents the organizational

structure most often used in research reports: Introduction,

Methods, Results, And Discussion. See Chap. 11.

Indirect costs Grantspeak for expenses related to adminis-

tration of a project and for the price of electricity, heat, and

building maintenance. At the NIH, these costs are termed

facilities and administrative costs, actually a more informa-

tive description than indirect costs.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

(ICMJE) The ICMJE is a group of medical journal editors,

APPendix 1. GlossAry of MedicAl WritinG Words And PhrAses 333

334 APPendix 1. GlossAry of MedicAl WritinG Words And PhrAses

representing a dozen diverse publications ranging from the

New England Journal of Medicine to the Croatian Medical

Journal. Because their first meeting was held in Vancouver,

Canada, the committee was originally called the “Vancouver

Group.” Their chief product is the Uniform Requirements for

Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, described

below.

JPEG An acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group,

representing a method that balances compression and qual-

ity of images.

Legend Also sometimes called a caption, the legend is the

title of a figure or table, and may also provide explanatory

information.

Letter of intent Also sometimes called a proposal concept

paper, the letter of intent is a synopsis of a research idea sent

to test the waters with a funding agency. In a sense, the letter

of intent is a “pre-application query.” It asks the question: Do

you think I should go to the trouble of preparing a full grant

proposal for this idea?”

Line drawing, line art A figure composed of black and white

lines, such as a graph, diagram, or drawing that is not shaded.

Loansome Doc A feature in PubMed that allows the user to

place an electronic order through the National Network of

Libraries of Medicine for the full-text copy of an article found

on MEDLINE.

Mark-up This refers to both the process and the symbols

by which copyeditors communicate specific instructions to

typesetters.

MDConsult A subscription-based Web site that allows

one to search medical reference books, medical journals,

MEDLINE, and drug information. The site includes clinical

practice guidelines and patient education handouts. It can be

found at: www.mdconsult.com.

MEDLINE (Medical Literature, Analysis, and Retrieval

System Online) The U.S. National Library of Medicine’s

(NLM) leading bibliographic database. It contains millions

334

of references to journal articles in the life sciences, chiefly in

biomedicine. It can be searched via PubMed or through the

NLM gateway: www.nlm.nih.gov.

MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) The National Library

of Medicine’s controlled vocabulary thesaurus. It consists

of sets of terms that permit searching MEDLINE at various

levels of specificity.

Meta-analysis A method of combining the results of several

studies into a summary conclusion, using quantitative strate-

gies that will allow consideration of data in diverse research

reports.

Monograph A specialized book, usually relatively short and

generally written by one person or a small group of specialists.

National Library of Medicine (NLM) The world’s largest

medical library with collections in all major areas of the

health sciences, and the home of MEDLINE and PubMed.

Network research The process of using sequential con-

tacts to find out a needed fact. The key question in network

research is, “Who do you recommend that I call next?” For

more details, see Chap. 3.

Offprints See Reprints.

Open access Publishing that is readily accessible online and

free to all. For a discussion of open access publishing, see

Chap. 12.

Overlay A transparent sheet with graphic material to be

superimposed on another page.

Page proofs A copy of typeset text laid out as it will appear

in print, including headings and page numbers.

Pagination The process of numbering the pages of a manu-

script. Your word processing program can do this for you.

PDF An abbreviation for Portable Document Format, the

file format used by Adobe Acrobat.

Peer review, peer reviewer The evaluation of a submitted

manuscript by individuals with appropriate credentials,


usually performed without the peer reviewers knowing who

wrote the manuscript or the author knowing who performed

the review. A peer reviewer may also be called a referee.

Positive outcome bias Describing how a research study

with a positive outcome—drug X was better than placebo—is

more likely to be published than a study that show no differ-

ence between items tested.

Proof A copy of a work that has been set in type, sent to

authors or editors to review for errors. Proof may be gal-

ley proofs, when not yet set as pages, or may be actual page

proofs of the article or book pages.

Proofreader’s marks A set of symbols used to identify errors

or changes on proofs. See Appendix 2.

Public Library of Science (PLoS) A nonprofit organization

of scientists and physicians that describes itself as commit-

ted to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a

freely available public resource.

Publisher The person, firm, or society who manages the

business activities related to bringing books or journals to

print or to a Web site.

PubMed A Web site that is a service of the National Library

of Medicine, with more than 14 million citations for biomedi-

cal articles from MEDLINE and other sources. PubMed is

discussed in Chap. 1, and can be accessed at: http://www.

pubmed.com.

RBG A color mode for images based on mixtures of red (R),

green (G), and blue (B) light.

Redaction The process of word-by-word, sentence-by-sen-

tence modification of a paper.

Referee See Peer review, peer reviewer.

Reprints Also sometimes called offprints, these are sepa-

rately printed copies of individual journal articles. Journals

generally provide these to authors for a fee.

Request for proposal (RFP) A funding agency’s invitation

to submit grant proposals.

336 APPendix 1. GlossAry of MedicAl WritinG Words And PhrAses336

Research report Also called a “scientific paper,” the research

report describes the results of a research study.

Review article A paper that deals with known information

in a thoughtful way, but does not present new data such as

the results of a clinical research study.

Running head A shorthand listing of items—usually an

abbreviated title of the article or chapter that appears at the

top of each page of a manuscript or book. In the case of a

manuscript, the running head allows the editor to reassemble

the pages if blown about by the wind. Because of the anonym-

ity of peer review, most journals do not want author names

included in a manuscript’s running head.

Science Citation Index (SCI) A proprietary database of

citations of published articles, the SCI is also used to calcu-

late the journal impact factor.

Stop A unit of punctuation that breaks the flow of words.

Stops include the comma, colon, semicolon, question mark,

and exclamation mark.

Stub Heading and line captions appearing at the side of a

formal table, used to describe the rows of figures presented.

Target journal As you prepare an article, the target journal

is number one on your publication wish list. This is where

you would like your paper published, and the article’s format

and style should mirror those of the target journal.

Tear sheets Pages removed from a previously published

book, generally used when revising—on paper—a previous

edition of the book.

Trade books Books published to be sold to the general pub-

lic, not to the market of professional clinicians and educa-

tors. Books for clinicians, scientists and other scholars are

called professional books.

Typesetting The process of composing the edited manu-

script as it will appear in the final pages. This term is

becoming obsolete.


Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to

Biomedical Journals A statement by the ICMJE, available

on the Web, describing how to prepare a paper for a medical

journal. It also covers related ethical issues in research and

writing. See further discussion in Chap. 1. Access the latest

version at: www.icmje.org.

UpToDate A subscription-based Web site that provided timely

reviews on clinical topics: http://www.uptodate.com.

338 APPendix 1. GlossAry of MedicAl WritinG Words And PhrAses338

The following symbols are used when correcting galley and

page proofs.

MeaningDelete; take outClose upDelete and close upInsert spaceEqual space between wordsInsert word(s)Insert periodInsert commaInsert semicolonInsert hyphenInsert parenthesesInsert apostropheInsert as superscriptMake subscriptStraighten line(s)Make new paragraphNo paragraph – run inTransposeMove left as indicatedMove right as indicatedCapital

Small capitalsLower caseRoman typeItalicCapital italicBoldface typeSpell outLet stand as is

Appendix 2. Proofreader’s Marks

339

* This list may be used in your medical writing. No specific permission form

is required for use, but please give full credit to this book as the source.

Appendix 3. commonly Used Medical Abbreviations*

Abbreviation Meaning

ACE Angiotensin-converting enzyme

ACTH Adrenocorticotropic hormone

AIDS Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

ALT Alanine aminotransferase (SGPT)

ANA Antinuclear antibody

AST Aspartate aminotransferase (SGOT)

bid Twice a day

BP Blood pressure

bpm Beats per minute

BS Blood sugar

BUN Blood urea nitrogen

CBC Complete blood count

CHD Coronary heart disease

CHF Congestive heart failure

Cl–

Chloride

CO2

Carbon dioxide

COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

CSF Cerebrospinal fluid

CT Computed tomography

cu mm Cubic millimeter

CXR Chest x-ray

d Day, daily

dL Deciliter

DM Diabetes mellitus

ECG Electrocardiogram

ESR Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

341

FDA United States Food and Drug Administration

g Gram

GI Gastrointestinal

Hb Hemoglobin

HDL-C High-density lipoprotein cholesterol

HF Heart failure

Hg Mercury

HIV Human immunodeficiency virus

HMO Health maintenance organization

hr Hour

hs Hour of sleep, at bedtime

HTN Hypertension

IM Intramuscular

INR International normalized ratio

IU International unit

IV Intravenous

K+

Potassium

kg Kilogram

L Liter

LD or LDH Lactate dehydrogenase

LDL-C Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

mEq Milliequivalent

mcg Microgram

mg Milligram

min Minute

mL Milliliter

mm Millimeter

mm3

Cubic millimeter

MRI Magnetic resonance imaging

Na+

Sodium

NSAID Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug

po By mouth (per os)

PT Prothrombin time

PTT Partial thromboplastin time

q Every

qd Every day; daily

qid Four times a day

qod Every other day

RBC Red blood cell, red blood count

SC Subcutaneous

342 APPendix 3. coMMonly Used MedicAl AbbreviAtions342

sec Second

SGOT See AST

SGPT See ALT

STD Sexually transmitted disease

TB Tuberculosis

tid Three times a day

TSH Thyroid-stimulating hormone

U Unit

UA Urine analysis

WBC White blood cell, white blood count

343APPendix 3. coMMonly Used MedicAl AbbreviAtions

clinical chemistry tests reference values

Alanine aminotransferase (ALT, SGPT) 0–35 U/L

Albumin 3.6–5.2 g/dL

Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) 35–120 U/L

Amylase, serum 44–128 U/L

Aspartate aminotransferase (AST,

SGOT)

0–35 U/L

Bilirubin, conjugated 0–0.2 mg/dL

Bilirubin, total 0.2–1.2 mg/dL

Calcium 8.5–10.5 mg/dL

Carbon dioxide (CO2), total 23–30 mEq/L

Chloride 98–109 mEq/L

Creatine kinase (CK, CPK) 30–170 U/L

Creatinine 0.7–1.2 mg/dL

Gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT) 5–40 U/L

Glucose, fasting 65–110 mg/dL

Hemoglobin A1C

5.0–7.0% of total Hb

Iron, serum 50–170 mg/dL

Iron binding capacity, total (TIBC) 270–390 mg/dL

Lactate, serum (venous) 5.0–20.0 mg/dL

Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) 110–260 U/L

Lipase 10–140 U/L

Magnesium 1.5–2.5 mg/dL

Potassium 3.5–5.1 mEq/L

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 0–4 ng/mL

Protein, total 6.1–7.9 g/dL

Sodium 136–147 mEq/L

Troponin I <2.5 ng/mL

Appendix 4. laboratory reference values for Adults*

* This list may be used in your medical writing. No specific permission form

is required for use. Please give full credit to this book as the source.

345

Troponin T <0.2 ng/mL

Urea nitrogen 6.0–23.0 mg/dL

Uric acid 2.6–7.2 mg/dL

lipid panel

Cholesterol, total 160–240 mg/dL

HDL cholesterol >40 mg/dL

LDL cholesterol <130 mg/dL

Triglycerides 55–200 mg/dL

thyroid function tests

Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) 2–11 mU/mL

Thyroxine, free (FT4) 0.8–2.4 ng/dL

Thyroxine, total (T4) 4.0–12.0 mcg/dL

Triiodothyronine (T3) 70–200 ng/dL

Triiodothyronine (T3) resin uptake (T

3 RU) 25–38%

Blood gasesArterial Venous

Base excess −3.0 to +3.0

mEq/L

−5.0 to +5.0

mEq/L

Bicarbonate (HCO3) 18–25 mEq/L 18–25 mEq/L

pO2

80–95 mmHg 30–48 mmHg

O2 saturation 95–98% 60–85%

pCO2

34–45 mmHg 35–52 mmHg

Total CO2

23–30 mEq/L 24–31 mEq/L

pH 7.35–7.45 7.32–7.42

hematology and coagulation tests

White cell (WBC) count 3.4–10.0 K/mm3

Hemoglobin (Hb, Hbg) 12.2–18.0 g/dL

Hematocrit (Hct) 37.0–54.0%

Red cell (RBC) count 3.80–5.20 mil-

lion/mm3

346 APPendix 4. lAborAtory reference vAlUes for AdUlts346

APPendix 4. lAborAtory reference vAlUes for AdUlts

Mean corpuscular volume (MCV) 85.0–95.0 cu

micra

Mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) 26.0–34.0 pg/cell

MCH concentration (MCHC) 32.6–36.0 g/dL

Red cell distribution width (RDW) 11.5–15.0%

Platelet count 150.0–420.0 K/

mm3

Reticulocyte count 0.5–1.5% of

RBCs

WBC differential

Neutrophils 38–70%

Lymphocytes 16–49%

Monocytes 2–9%

Eosinophils 0–5%

Basophils 0–2%

Sedimentation rate

Adult male 0–15 mm/h

Adult female 0–20 mm/h

Coagulation tests

Fibrinogen 200–400 mg/dL

Partial thromboplastin time (PTT) 60–85 s

Activated PTT 25–35 s

Prothrombin time (PT) 11–14 s

Note: The reference intervals shown are for adults, and may

vary according to technique or laboratory, or as new methods

are introduced. Always consult the reference range for your

own laboratory.

347

The following is a list of terms commonly used in writing

research protocols, grant applications, and reports of clini-

cal studies.

Absolute risk This is the probability of something, such as

myocardial infarction or death, occurring, without reference

to any special context, such as comparison to another setting.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) Typically referring to

adverse events, absolute risk describes the probability of an

event in the population under study, and ARR is the arith-

metic difference in the rates of events between study and

control groups. It is the inverse of the number needed to

treat (NNT). Relative risk reduction (RRR) is the percent-

age difference in outcomes between the study and control

groups. Here is an example: If a treatment, such as use of an

antiplatelet agent, decreases the risk of a stroke from 2 per

thousand to 1 per thousand, than the absolute risk reduction

is 1/1,000. And in this scenario, the relative risk reduction

(described below) is 50%.

Bias Also called systematic error, bias describes something

that might confound the validity of a study. One example

is exclusion bias, which occurs when persons with specific

characteristics, such as a co-existing disease, are excluded

from a study sample. Another type of bias is attrition bias,

in which there is a pattern that arises among persons who

drop out of a study. There is also recall bias, referral bias and

selection bias, described below.

Case-control study A retrospective comparison of a group

of subjects with a disease or outcome of interest with a

Appendix 5. Methodological and statistical terms Used in research studies

349

group without the disease or outcome of interest, seeking a

probable cause for the disease or outcome in the study (case)

group that is absent in the control group. In other words,

this study design starts with the disease or outcome—such

a stroke--and looks back to identify antecedent events, expo-

sures, or risk factors.

Cochrane Collaboration A network of physicians and

scholars who perform systematic reviews and meta-analyses

of randomized clinical trials and other research stud-

ies. The results of their efforts are found in The Cochrane

Database of Systematic Reviews, which can be accessed

at: http://www.cochrane.org/. The name commemorates

the British physician and epidemiologist Archie Cochrane

(1909–1988), who advocated for systematic summaries of

best evidence to improve the effectiveness and efficiency

of care.

Cohort A defined group of people (subjects). A study group

and a control group might each be called a cohort. A study

cohort may or may not share one of many types of attributes:

age, race, exposure to a disease, presence of a disease, use of

a drug, or something else.

Cohort study Sometimes called incidence or longitudinal

studies, cohort studies are observation research that involves

examination of a study group (who received an intervention

or were exposed to a risk) versus a control group. In contrast

to a case-control study, a cohort study starts with the expo-

sure and follows subjects to determine the outcome. A long

term follow-up of a group of persons accidentally exposed to

radiation in an industrial accident versus a control group of

unexposed persons would be a cohort study.

Confidence interval (CI) An estimate of reliability. For

example an author describing a “95% CI” is saying that if

things are done the same way 100 times, we would expect

similar results in at least 95% of instances.

Crossover trial A method of comparing interventions in

which subjects in two cohorts each complete one course of

treatment and then are switched to the other.

350 APPendix 5. MethodoloGicAl And stAtisticAl terMs350

APPendix 5. MethodoloGicAl And stAtisticAl terMs

Cross-sectional study Observation research involving

disease in relationship to other variables in a specific popula-

tion at a specific time. Most such research involves a one-shot

survey of subjects.

Effectiveness An expression of the extent to which an inter-

vention yields a desired outcome.

Hazard ratio (HR) According to the National Cancer

Institute, the hazard ratio describes how often a particu-

lar event happens in one group compared to how often it

happens in another group, measured over time. In cancer

research, hazard ratios are often used in clinical trials to

measure survival at any point in time in a group of patients

who have been given a specific treatment compared to a con-

trol group given another treatment or a placebo, generating

the familiar “survival curves.” In this setting, a hazard ratio

of 1 means that there is no difference in survival between the

two groups. A hazard ratio of greater than one or less than

one means that survival was better in one of the groups.

Incidence, incidence rate A measurement of the number

of previously unaffected persons who develop a condition

during a particular period of time, such as a year, 5 years

or even a lifetime. Knowing the incidence of a disease helps

us understand the likelihood that a disease will occur in a

given person over a given time frame. For example, think

of a cruise ship carrying 1,000 passengers on a week long

voyage. If, during that voyage, 95 persons develop acute gas-

troenteritis, then the incidence of that disease in that popu-

lation of passengers for that 7-day time interval is 95/1,000

or 9.5%.

Likelihood ratio (LR) The odds that a given test result

would be expected in a patient with the specific disease

compared to the chances that that same result would be

expected in a patient without the disease in question. The

LR is helpful in assessing the probability that a specific

diagnostic test will be useful. It does so by providing a direct

estimate of how much a test result will change the odds of

finding a disease, and incorporates both the sensitivity and

specificity of the test. The likelihood ratio for a positive test

351

result is: sensitivity/1 – specificity. The likelihood ratio for

a negative test result is: 1 – sensitivity/specificity. A LR less

than 1 indicates a lower likelihood of disease, while a LR

greater than 1 indicates a higher likelihood of disease. Tests

with LRs less than 0.2 or greater than 5.0 tend to be the most

useful clinically.

Meta-analysis A type of systematic review (see below) that

involves quantitative methods and rigorous pooling of data

from applicable clinical trials. Perhaps the best known

of the meta-analyses are the reports from the Cochrane

Collaboration.

Mixed methods research Research that combines quantita-

tive and qualitative methods in a single study. It has been

called the third research paradigm.

Null hypothesis (H0) An assertion that no statistical signifi-

cance exists in a set of given observations. It is presumed to

be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative

hypothesis.

Number needed to treat (NNT) The number of persons who

must receive an intervention in order for one more person to

benefit. It can be calculated as the inverse of absolute risk

reduction (1/ARR). The other side of the coin would be the

number needed to harm (NNH).

Odds ratio The odds ratio is a descriptive statistic used to

assess the risk of a particular outcome, typically a disease,

if a certain risk factor or event is present. Thus it is a rela-

tive measure of risk, telling us how much more likely it is

that someone who is exposed to the factor being studied will

develop the disease or other outcome as compared to some-

one who is not exposed.

Post-test probability The proportion of patients with a par-

ticular test result who have the target disorder. In deciding

whether or not to recommend a specific test--for example, a

magnetic resonance scan in a patient with back pain—know-

ing the post-test probability will help the clinician decide if

the test result is likely to make a difference in the treatment

of the patient.



Precision An expression, often described as a confidence

interval (see above), of the paucity of random error.

Predictive value A ratio, stated as a percentage, of the

patients with a positive tests for a disease who actually have

the disease (positive predictive value). Predictive value is

strongly affected by the prevalence of a disease, even if the

sensitivity and specificity of the test remain constant. There

is also negative predictive value, the probability that a person

with a negative test does not have the disease in question.

Pre-test probability A measurement of the likelihood of a

positive test result determined before the result of a test is

known. For example, if we know, hypothetically, that in a

large population of 50 year old asymptomatic women, the

vitamin D level will be low in 9% of subjects, this figure repre-

sents the pre-test probability of finding a low vitamin D serum

level in the next asymptomatic 50-year-old woman tested.

Pre-test/post-test case series An observational study in which

outcomes are measured in subjects before and again after

exposure to some sort of intervention. Clinician researchers

are fond of using this method to measure clinician behavior,

such as prescribing, before and after being exposed to new

information.

Prevalence A measurement of the total number of cases of

the disease in the population at a given time. It may be stated

as a percentage: the total number of cases in the population

(the numerator) divided by the number of individuals in the

population (the denominator). Hypertension, for example

is often stated as having a 28–30% prevalence in the U.S.

population. Prevalence tells us how common a disease is. In

contrast, incidence tells us how many new cases occur in a

given time frame.

Primary outcome The finding considered most clinically

relevant in assessing the effect of an intervention. As an exam-

ple, in a study of the use of a new analgesic in treating low

back pain the primary outcome would logically be back pain

relief, and not, for instance, reports of improvement in gen-

eral well-being or a reduced incidence of tension headaches.

353

Prospective study A “looking-forward” study in which the

outcome event has not yet occurred. An example might be a

study of what happens when a group of overweight persons

are treated with a new appetite suppressant versus the out-

come in a similar group of persons who do not receive the

drug. Randomized trials are all prospective studies, as are

some cohort studies.

p-value See Statistical significance, below.

Qualitative research Research used when traditional quanti-

tative measurements would not be helpful. Usually employed

in studies of human subjects, qualitative research explores

issues, phenomena and the reasons underlying decision-

making.

Randomization A process, sometimes called random

allocation, by which subjects are assigned to groups by

chance, often using a table of random numbers. At the other

end of the spectrum is the convenience sample, which might

be the next 100 patients to walk through the door.

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) The gold standard of

clinical scientific research, the RCT is an experimental study

design that involves random allocation of subjects and inter-

ventions. With successful randomization of subjects, study

and control group have comparable characteristics (even if

we don’t know what the relevant characteristics are!) and

selection bias is absent.

Recall bias A systematic error in a research study that

occurs when evidence is collected by relying on the patient’s

memory. Think of a study that involves administration of a

new vaccine evaluated by an interview a few weeks later, ask-

ing about possible side effects.

Referral bias A type of systematic error related to who is

assigned to the study versus the control group, typically seen

when patients are referred from the community to a study

in a tertiary care center, and decisions are made based on

patient characteristics as to who should be in which cohort.

The result is a non-randomized study.



Relative risk (RR) Also sometimes called the risk ratio. The

probability of an adverse outcome occurring during a speci-

fied time interval in a study group exposed to some sort of

event versus the outcome without the exposure. For example,

we might be concerned with the relative risk of stroke among

persons with and without hypertension.

Relative risk reduction (RRR) An expression of the degree

to which an intervention decreases the probability of devel-

oping a disease, complication, or other adverse outcome. For

example, we might conduct a study to see what protection

against major cardiovascular events is afforded by various

categories of antihypertensive agents.

Reliability The consistency of an assessment method. If the

speedometer on my car happens to be set to read 50 miles per

hour (mph) when the actual speed is 60 mph, it will reflect

this error every time, and thus be reliable even though it is

not accurate. This will make scant difference to the traffic

officer who writes the summons for speeding.

Retrospective cohort study An examination of what has

already happened to a group of individuals who experienced

an exposure or intervention compared with an otherwise

similar group who did not experience the exposure or inter-

vention. An example of such a study might be the record

review to determine the uterine cancer risk that has already

occurred in women exposed to hormone replacement therapy

(HRT) compared to a similar group with no HRT exposure. A

prospective cohort study, in contrast, would follow exposed

and unexposed women into the future.

Selection bias In a cohort or case control study, selection

bias occurs when, for one reason or another, study groups

and control groups differ from the start. Suppose, for

instance, that in a cohort study to determine the outcome of

treating heart failure with a specific drug, the intervention

group had far more diabetic patients than the control group.

Selection bias may also be termed allocation bias.

Sensitivity (Sn) A measurement of the portion of items

correctly detected as present. This usually has to do with tests

355

used to detect disease. Thus a test with 100% (also stated as

1.0) sensitivity for tuberculosis, for example, would identify

all persons with the disease, and a test with a 0.5 sensitivity

would detect half of those infected. Compare this term with

Specificity, described below. A test with a high sensitivity will

have few false negatives.

Specificity (Sp) A measurement of the proportions of items

correctly identified as not present, often represented as the

percentage of healthy people who are correctly identified as

not having a particular disease. Thus a test with 100% (or

alternatively, 1.0) specificity for tuberculosis, for example,

would not identify (incorrectly) anyone from the healthy

group as sick. A test with a high specificity will have few false

positives.

Statistical significance The term refers the likelihood that a

result could occur by chance, usually expressed as a p-value.

The smaller the p-value the less likely it is that the findings

reported are the result of chance. If the level is 0.05, then

there is a 5% chance that the findings occurred by chance.

In research terminology, a setting in which a so-called null

hypothesis (see above) is often employed, the smaller the

p-value, the less likely the null hypothesis is true, and conse-

quently the more statistically significant the reported result is

considered. Thus a p-value of 0.01 represents a higher level of

statistical significance than a p-value of 0.05.

Stratification The process of separating research subjects

into clinically relevant subgroups for analysis. For example,

we might stratify the analysis of a drug for treating hyper-

tension by separately examining patients with and without

elevated creatinine levels. This is one strategy for reducing

confounding; another strategy would be to simply exclude

patients with high creatinine levels from a study.

Systematic review A general term describing a look-back at

multiple published reports on a single topic in an attempt to

answer one or more focused questions relevant to the topic.

Using a reproducible search strategy in bibliographic data

bases, and selecting all articles that meet specified criteria

(e.g., sample size, randomization, or other design features)


are the characteristics that make a review “systematic,” in

contrast to “what’s in my file drawer.”

Validity A description of the extent to which a study accu-

rately measures what the researcher set out to measure. There

are various types of validity: Face validity is the research

“sniff test:” Do the study design and results reported seem to

make sense? Internal validity has to do with the integrity of

the research design. External validity is a description of the

extent to which the study conclusions are generalizable to

other populations. These all differ from reliability– the repro-

ducibility of the actual measuring instrument or procedure.

APPendix 5. MethodoloGicAl And stAtisticAl terMs 357

Index

A

Academic medical center (AMC)

corporate-sponsored research,

243–244

grant office, 243

Acceptance letter, 306

AMC. See Academic medical center

American Medical Writers

Association (AMWA), 319

AMWA. See American Medical

Writers Association

Article structure

components, 36

concept, 35

controversies, 37

IMRAD model, 37

information presentation, 35

list, 37

mistakes, 38

preliminary outline, 36

questions and answers, 37

report writing, 37

review format, 35

rules, 35

Article submission plan

aiming high, 289–290

editors, journal

author instructions, 290–291

peer review system, 290

rapid review, 291

good and bad manuscripts

chain letter and attention

grabber, 292

clone, 291–292

editor’s view, 291

shell game and ambush, 292

Zombie, 293

journal selection

article formats and impact

factor, 289

paper topics, 288–289

Authored books

advantage, 213

contracts, 212–213

vs.edited, 210

enrichment books, single-author,

211–212

proposal packet, 202, 212

B

Baby and Child Care, 213

“Benign brutality”, 86

BHP. See Bureau of health

professions

Bias

attrition, 346

exclusion, 346

recall, 346, 351

referral, 346, 351

selection, 346, 352

Blueprint, 31, 38, 57, 65

BMJ. See British Medical Journal

Book chapters

Difficult Diagnosis, 191–192

invitation, writing

academician and clinician, 192

agreement, 192–193

description, 191–192

negotiable and non negotiable

items, 194

359

360 Index

Book chapters (Continued)

preparation and submission

checklist review, 197

Difficult Diagnosis, 195–196

structure, 196–197

review articles, 191

Book review

appropriate entries, 176

art of writing

beginning, 178–179

clarity and book’s ability, 178

factual accuracy, 178

follow pattern, 178

good and bad points,

179–180

questions, reviewer, 180

summarize reviewer’s opinion,

180–181

cautions, 182–183

contribution, 176

difficulties, 176

excellent review

arguments, 181–182

aware, 182

merits and attempt

to outshine, 181

witty and taste, 182

factual accuracy, 178

journals and editors, 175–176

mid-twentieth century, 175

today’s reviews, 175

types

classic/standard

comparison, 177

favorite topics, 177

good features balancing,

177–178

relationship, 176

British Medical Journal (BMJ)

British Medical Journal for the

American Physician

(BMJ-USA), 145

letters, editor, 169

OA publishing, 322–323

publication fee, 322

weekly circulation, 117

Bureau of Health Professions

(BHP), 241

C

Carvedilol Prospective Randomized

Cumulative Survival

(COPERNICUS) Study, 224

Case report

case-related analysis, 162

format, 163–165

letter-style, 163

literature and article review, 162

observations, single and several

patients, 163

patient, disease, 162

in practice, 162–163

recording, 161

Clarity

crystal-clear, 79–80

meaning, 79

misuse, Thesaurus, 82

MS Word Thesaurus, 80

neophyte, 80–81

plural words, 82

weighty words and sentences, 80

words and constructions, 80

“wrote of” and “referred to”, 81

Clinical study report

epidemiology, 265

IMRAD model

abstract, 272–273

acknowledgments, 282–283

authors, 270–272

discussion, 280–281

elements, 269

format, 266

introduction, 274–276

key words, 274

methods, 276–278

references, 281–282

results, 278–279

title, 269–270

trial registration, 274

JAMA, 266

The Lancet, 266

mistakes

checklist, 283–284

group wordsmithing and

midnight editing, 283

original research

preparation, 266

360

Index 361

rigid format, 267

Pediatrics, 265

research

academic careers, 267

author opinions, 284–285

hypothesis-based, 268–269

mentors, 285

print, 285

quality writing and design, 284

questions, 267–268

Computer programs

drug reference, 18

electronic medical dictionary,

17–18

spell checker/MS program, 18

thesaurus, 17

Contests, 318–319

COPERNICUS. See Carvedilol

Prospective Randomized

Cumulative Survival Study

D

Danger signs

cuteness, 85

red-flag phrases, 84

statement, 85

Data collection and organization

data phase, 67

notes, 68–69

outlines

determine topic and concept, 69

expand heading levels, 70

sub-heading levels, 70–71

preparation, 72

references, 71–72

research tools, 68

Density

printed page, 43, 45

sentence, 46–47

Difficult Diagnosis, 191, 195–197,

199, 205, 208

Difficult Medical Management, 205

E

Echoic words, 58

Edited books

after publication, 209–210

compile

chapter, 206–207

missing chapters, 207–208

compiling editor, 197–198

contract


items, review, 203

surprises, 204

working, authors, 204

find right person

acquisitions editor,

200–201

potential publishers, 201

initiator, 197

planning

decision, 199

publisher, financial risk,

198–199

steps, 199

time commitment, 199–200

proposal, 201–202

publication, 208–209

working, authors

agreement, 205–206

development editor, 206

recruitment, 204–205

reminders, 206

Editorial

editor, 165

editorial opinion, 165

types

accompanying comment, 167

editor’s opinion, 166

journals publisher, 166

salesmanship, 166

sharing special insight,

167–168

volunteered, 165

writing

counterevidence, 169

headings, 169

offer evidence and support

opinions, 168

personal insight, 169

present problem, 168

provide clue, 168

reference sources list, 169

summary, 169

Errata, 125, 210, 312, 314

361

362 Index

Errors

errata, 312–314

galley proofs, 209

grant proposal writing, 261–262

review article, 158–159

systematic, 346, 351

Ethical issues

author qualification, 137–138

conflict-of-interest problem,

133–134

duplicate publication, 138–139

ghost authorship, 137

honorary authors, 136–137

ICMJE, 135

JAMA, 134

plagiarism, 135–136

project-specific industry financial

and material support,

134–135

spin, 139

Evidence-based clinical review

American Family Physician

journal, 157–158

attention, quality, 157

EBM sources, 157

sites list, 156, 157

Evidence-based medicine (EBM),

156, 157

F

Fellowships, 318

Figures

algorithms

clinical reasoning, 103–104

construction, 104

decision tree, 103


submission, manuscript, 104

article, 96

construction tips, 97


graphs

computers, 102

types, 100, 102

ICMJE instructions, 96

line drawings

computer, 100, 101

illustration, 99

JAMA and NEJM, 99–100

medical illustrator, 100

photographic images

color art, 97–98


half tone art, 97

prints, 98

x-rays, 98

First draft beginning

delaying tactics, 74

getting stuck

early draft writing, 76

unstuck methods, 76–77

stage setting, 72–73

starting, diverse ways, 73–74

type first words, 73

words, 74–75

FOIA. See Freedom

of Information Act

Formal tables, 92, 93

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

245

G

Grant proposal

appendix/supplementary items

affiliation agreement, 254

consent form and biographical

summaries, 255

references, 255

support letters, 254

awards, 240

budget and justification, 252–253

components, 248, 249

errors, 261–262

executive summary, 249–250

funding sources

government, 241–242

non-governmental, 243–244

future funding plans, 253–254

getting grants, 262–263

grantsmanship, 259

information sources, 263

institution overview, 250

methods, 251–252

money, 239

National Institutes of Health

(NIH), 239–240

362

Index 363

objectives/research question, 251

principles, 255–257

problem/background, 250–251

rejection, 260–261

research protocol, 240–241

review process, 257–258

timeline, 252

“tournament” model, 240

writing applications

ACE program, 248

budget planning, 247–248

intent letter, 246–247

program officer, 245–246

review, past, 245

RFP, 244–245

title, 248

Grantsmanship, 259

H

HAGS. See Hypocupremia after

gastric surgery

Harrison’s Principles of Internal

Medicine, 16, 177, 198

Health Resources and Services

Administration (HRSA),

241, 242

HRSA. See Health Resources and

Services Administration

Hypocupremia after gastric surgery

(HAGS), 223–224

I

ICMJE. See International

Committee of Medical

Journal Editors

Idea incubation, 33–34

ILSCLAGS. See Incidence of low

serum copper levels after

gastric surgery

IMRAD model. See Introduction,

methods, results and

discussion model

Incidence of low serum copper

levels after gastric surgery

(ILSCLAGS), 223–225

“Informal refereeing”, 86

Information sources, grant

seeking, 263

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

consent form, poorly written, 236

ethical issues, 232

research protocol template, 220

International Committee of Medical

Journal Editors (ICMJE)

instruction, authors, 277–278

instructions, 95, 96

member journals, 234

model, 112

Uniform Requirements, 23, 284

Introduction, methods, results and

discussion (IMRAD) model

abstract

authors instructions, JAMA, 273

described, 272

technical basis, 273

Uniform Requirements, 272

well-written structured,

272–273

acknowledgments, 282–283

authors

inflation, 271

issues, 270–271

listing, 271–272

rank order, 271

discussion

biased collection, 280–281

generalizability, 280

phrase, 280

summary, conclusions, 281

elements, 269

introduction

background, 275

problem, 274–275

research question, 275–276

technical issues, 276

key words, 274

methods

description, statistics, 277

headings, 276

ICMJE instruction, 277–278

publications, 278, 279

reproducibility, 276–277

subjects, 277

survey instruments, 277

original research report, 37

references

363

364 Index

Introduction, methods, results and

discussion (IMRAD) model

(Continued)

citation, 281

description, 281

“merit badge”, authors, 281

suggestions and comments,

281–282

results

findings, logical sequence,

278–279

tables and figures, 279–280

title

description, 269

instructions, authors, 270

JAMA article and phrases, 270

misunderstanding, author’s

intent, 269–270

as newspaper headline, 270

trial registration, 274

IRB. See Institutional Review Board

J

JAMA. See Journal of the American

Medical Association

Journal of the American Medical

Association (JAMA)

articles, 99

described, 266

instruction

graph and chart requirements, 102

line drawings, 99

photographic images, 97

reference citations, 112

table construction and

submission, 94–95

tables submission, 95

title, 270

K

Keytlaw, 109

L

Laboratory reference values, adults

blood gases, 344

lipid panel, 344

tests

clinical chemistry, 343, 344

hematology and coagulation,

344–345

thyroid function, 344

The Lancet

description, 266

editor of, 285

Impact Factor, 120

Letter to editor

early stage, 169

instruction list

and submission, 174

journal editors, 169

publication option, 170

readers and publishers, 169

types

add new idea, 170–171

Attaboy, 170

disagreement, 171

Gotcha, 172

issue, standard of care, 172

perspective, 171

review article transform,

172–173

sharing, 172

“sounding off”, 172

statement, 171–172

writing letter

cite reference, 174

identify paper, 173

literature-based evidence, 174

reason, 173

successful letter, 173

summary statement, 174

think of, 173

Literature review

difficulties, 153–154

Journal of General Internal

Medicine (JGIM), 153

long list references, 152

medical writing, useful

purposes, 152–153

modern technology, 153

recent article, 153

state of art, 152, 153

“The Little Red Book”, 115

M

Manuscript submission

364

Index 365

checklist, 295–296

electronic

advantages, 296

vs. old method, 296–297

online composing, 297

mistakes

spell checker, 297–298

touting and perfection seeking,

298

Medical abbreviations, 340–342

Medical books, thoughts

effort, 214–215

market rules, 215–216

professional and trade


publishing companies, 214

publishing and personal

relationships, 216

serendipity and chance, 215

Medical journals

broad-based peer-reviewed

definition, 116

NEJM, BMJ and JAMA, 116–117

clinicians

grazing habit, 121–122

hunting and gorging, 122–123

controlled-circulation

indexing and impact factor,

118–119

“throw-aways”, 117–118

impact factor

clinicians, 121


The Lancet, 120

variables, 121

index databases, 119

overstatement and hubris, 128–129

“right”

abbreviations, 126–127

accuracy and precision, 125

acronyms, 127–128

medical jargon and slang,

123–124

stance problem, 128

specialty oriented

peer-reviewed, 117

understatement and waffling,

129–130

Medical subject headings (MeSH),

21, 274

MeSH. See Medical subject headings

Methodological and statistical terms

absolute risk, 346

bias, 346

case-control study, 346

Cochrane collaboration, 347

confidence interval (CI), 347

cross-sectional study, 348

hazard ratio (HR), 348

likelihood ratio (LR), 348–349

post-test probability, 349

precision, 350

pre-test probability, 350

prevalence, 350

primary outcome, 351

prospective study, 351

qualitative research, 351

relative risk reduction (RRR), 352

retrospective cohort study, 352

statistical significance, 353

stratification, 353

systematic review, 353

Microsoft (MS) Word program, 7,

17, 18, 280, 287

Mistakes

article structure, 38

long article, 159

outline, major heading, 158

references, 159

stale rehash, 158

submission, wrong journal, 158

timely topic, 158

unimportant topic, 158

Misuse words, 62

MS. See Microsoft

N

NEJM. See New England

Journal of Medicine

New England Journal

of Medicine (NEJM)

electronic document, 296

error notice, 125

instructions, 100, 104

JAMA and, 99–100

medical students teaching, 170

365

366 Index

New England Journal of Medicine

(NEJM) (Continued)

online publishing, 321

presubmission inquiries/fast

track, 291

requirements, 105–106

research report, 167

O

Occam’s razor principle, 83

Onomatopoeic words, 58

Open access (OA) publishing

advantages, 323–324

BMJ, 322–323

commercial and non-profit

publishers, 324

described, 322

P

Paragraph development

exception, classic format, 39–40

meaning, 38

organizing, 40

reader consideration, 42–43

small essay, 38–39

steps, 39

topic sentence, 39

using concrete examples, 41–42

Peer review, 299–301

PI. See Primary investigator;

Principal investigator

Prewriting

article concept and structure, 69

copyeditor work, 67

pick area, 67

sinusitis, general topic, 66–67

topic thinking, 65

Primary investigator (PI), 225

Principal investigator (PI)

experience and resources, 262

grant proposal, components,

248, 249

The Principles and Practice of

Medicine, 8, 189

Proofreader’s marks, 339

Proofreading

copyeditor’s role, 310–311

galley and page proofs, 311

marks, 312

reference list, 311–312

Publication models

egalitarian, 185

irony and humor, 186

medicine history, 184

movie reviews, 184–185

newspaper column, 186–187

poetry, 183

practical pointers, 33–34

practice tips, 185–186

publication opportunities, 183

x-ray/photo quiz, 184

Publisher

“Clinician’s Corner”, 145–146

contact information list, 146–148

contacting, 146

Elsevier, 117

favor, new author, 146

MedReviews, 146

New England Journal of Medicine

(NEJM), 145

prestigious journals, 145

regular article, 145

Springer, 106, 216

supply, review papers, 146

Punctuation

commas, 48

periods and question marks,

49–50

semicolons, 49

R

Random thoughts, medical writing

history, 7–9

reading

diverse items and various

reasons, 9

latest known advances, 9

regular and constant, 9

seek information and general

knowledge, 9

structure, 9

style and nonmedical books, 10

time-capsule items collection, 10

writing

career topics, 12–14

creativity, 11–12

professionals, 13

story telling, 11

366

Index 367

Readers

attention, 143

clinicians, experts and attorneys,

148

content thinking, 143

nationally known specialists, 149

referring physicians, 149

relaxation readers, 148

Rejection letter

appealing the decision, 302–303

causes, article, 302

examples, 304–305

reviewers’ remarks, 303

second submission, 303–304

RePORT. See Research portfolio

online reporting tools

Request for proposal (RFP)


font and margin, document, 256

instructions

curriculum vitae,

investigators, 234

writing, research protocol,

219–220

language, 255

project

budget, 233

summary, 226

signals, 261

Research portfolio online reporting

tools (RePORT), 245

Research protocol

background and rationale, 226

budget and grant, 233

characteristics, 234–235

clinical trial registration and

appendix, 234

collaborations, 233

“critical-reader” colleague, 236

dissemination, results, 231

draft title

acronym-named randomized

trials, 224–225

reader’s perspective, 223

ethical considerations, 232

expected outcomes, 231

follow-up and data

management, 230

format, 222–223

hypothetical study, 223

investigators

activity, 234

curriculum vitae, 234

IRB, 220

links, projects, 233–234

PI and co-investigators, 225

possible problems, 231–232

problems, 235–236

project management, 232

project summary

PICO model, 225

quality, questions, 225–226

RFPs and language, 226

vs. proposal, 219

quality assurance, 230–231

RFP, 219–220

safety considerations, 228, 230

serum copper levels, 224–225

study

control groups and sample

size, 227–228

design, 227

goals and objectives, 227

statistical tests, 228

timeline, 228, 229

team assembling, 221

Resources assembling

books

dictionaries, 15

inter-specialty reference, 16–17

specific reference, 16

computer programs

drug reference, 18

electronic medical dictionary,

17–18

spell check, 18

thesaurus, 17

web sites

BioMedLib.com, 21–22

book list and information, 18

charge subscription fee, 18

Google and Google Scholar,

19–20

MDConsult, 22

MEDLINE/PubMed, 20–22

MS uniform requirements,

biomedical journal, 23

professionals information, 18

367

368 Index

Resources assembling (Continued)

search Boolean, 19

UpToDate, 22–23

writing area, 14–15, 17–18

Review article writing

clinical presentation and current

status, 145

combine categories, 145

concept and structure,

143–144

evidence-based clinical review

(see Evidence-based

clinical review)

journal’s impact factor, 143

learning disorders, epilepsy, 145

literature review

(see Literature review)

management, 145

material, 144–145

mistakes (see Mistakes)

planning

begin work, 149

consulting, journal editor,

151–152

organize topic, 149–151

publisher (see Publisher)

readers (see Readers)

respect and organizing data, 143

review paper, 144

splenomegaly, 145

systematic review

and meta-analysis

(see Systematic review

and meta-analysis)

traditional types, 145

types, 144

Review process

archival author

and evaluations, 301

editor’s role, 298

journal editor’s decision

acceptance letter, 306

rejection letter, 302–305

revision letter, 305–306

role and duties

editor, 300–301

peer reviewer, 299–300

secrets

authors and affiliations,

308–309

editorial conflict, interest, 310

journal space and industry-

sponsored studies, 309–310

native language, 307–308

peer review, 306–307

Revision letter, 305–306

Revision work

clarity

crystal-clear, 79–80

meaning, 79

misuse, Thesaurus, 82

MS Word Thesaurus, 80

neophyte, 80–81

plural words, 82

weighty words and sentences, 80

words and constructions, 80

“wrote of” and “referred to”, 81

critical reader, 86–87

danger signs

cuteness, 85

red-flag phrases, 84

statement, 85

stuff removing


danger signs, 84

edit, 77

editing vs. revision, 78

meaning, 82


paragraphs and sections, 83–84

pre-final drafts, 78–79

removing stuff, 82–83

time to make, 77

words, 83

style

description, 79

straightforward and unadorned

writing, 79

RFP. See Request for proposal

S

Self-publication

agent and publisher, 319–320

described, 319

Erbonia Books, 320–321

vanity vs. subsidy press, 320

368

Index 369

Sentences

active vs. passive voice, 43–45

construction

cadence, 48

density, 46–47

variation, beginning, type and

length, 46

verbs, 56

words per sentence, 45

misplaced phrases, 50

punctuation

commas, 48–49

periods and question marks,

49–50

semicolons, 49

verbose phrases, 50–51

SERR. See Systematic evaluation of

research risks

SMART. See Specific, measurable,

achievable, relevant and time

Specific, measurable, achievable,

relevant and time

(SMART), 227

Start-up ideas and handling

data collection and organization

basic research tools, 68

data phase, 67

notes, 68–69

outlines, 69–71

over-prepare, 72

references, 71–72

final draft, 87–88

first draft, beginning

stage setting, 72–73

stuck, 76–77

tactics delaying, 74

where and how to begin, 73–74

words, 74–75

prewriting

article concept and structure, 69

copyeditor work, 67

pick area, 67

sinusitis, general topic, 66–67

topic thinking, 65

revision work


danger signs, 84

edit, 77

editing vs. revision, 78

pre-final drafts, 78–79

removing stuff, 82–83

style and clarity, 79–80

time to make, 77

Stedman’s Electronic Medical

Dictionary, 15, 17

Stops, 48

Stuff removal

first draft, 82


paragraphs and sections, article,

83–84

words, 83

Submission letter, 293, 294

Systematic evaluation of research

risks (SERR), 230

Systematic review and meta-

analysis

data-oriented, 154–155

qualitative, 154

safety and efficacy, 156

scientific investigation, 154

systematic review, 155–156

value, 154

T

Tables

advantages, 92

borrowing, 93–94



journal editor’s expectation

footnotes and submission, 95

JAMA, 94–95

types and characteristics,

92, 93

Taylor’s rules, medical writers,

325–326

Technical issues

borrowed materials and

permissions

author’s responsibility, 111

description, 107

illustrations and permissions

cost, 111

legal issue, 109

necessity, 108

369

370 Index

Technical issues (Continued)

online requisition, 111–112

“public domain”, 108

qualifications, 112

sample letter, 109–110

text usage, 108–109

U.S. Copyright Office web site,

107–108

copyright

act, 105

intellectual property rights,

105–106

ownership, 106–107

protection, 104–105

description, 91

figures, 95–104

reference citations

number, 112

types, 112–113

use, 113–114

tables, 91–95

Text table, 92, 93

Trade books, 190

U

“Uniform Requirements”, 23, 95,

272, 277, 281, 284, 334, 338

W

Web sites

BioMedLib.com, 21–22

book list and information, 18

charge subscription fee, 18

Google and Google Scholar, 19–20

MDConsult, 22

MEDLINE/PubMed, 20–22

MS uniform requirements,

biomedical journal, 23

professionals information, 18

search Boolean, 19

UpToDate, 22–23

Words

basic tool, 52

choosing

annoyance, 60–61

misuse words, 62

precise manner, 59–60

right words, 59

difficulties, 52

medical words understanding

Anglo-Saxon tongues, 53

etymologic derivation, 52

Latininization, 52

literature/mythology, 53

middle English, 53

origins, medical words, 53–54

post-renaissance era, 52–53

using, clinical care, 52

short, 52

type of

eponyms, 58–59

metaphor and similes, 57–58

modifiers, 56–57

nouns and pronouns, 55

onomatopoeia and

alliteration, 58

verbs, 56

Words and phrases

author, 331

Boolean logic, 331

camera-ready copy, 331

compositor, 331

copyeditor, 332

grey literature, 333

IMRAD, 333

JPEG, 334

mark-up, 334

meta-analysis, 335

proofreader’s marks, 336

running head, 337

science citation index (SCI), 337

target journal, 337

trade book, 337

typesetting, 337

Words per sentence, 45

Writer, key questions

reader and patient, 25

requirement and publishing

author and editor, 24

refereed journals, 25

right audience, 24–25

target journal, 25

significance work and attention,

24–25

Writing and publishing

article submission plan

370

Index 371

aiming high, 289–290

good and bad manuscripts,

291–293

journal selection, 288–289

working, journal editors,

290–291

errors

labeling, 312–314

origination, 312

publication rate vs. career age,

312–314

warning label, 314

goals, author and editor, 288

paper revision and printing,

287–288

performance and responses,

324–325

post-publication steps

AMWA, 319

contests, 318–319

criticism, 315–317

fellowships, 318

file saving, 314–315

reprints, 315

self-publication, 319–321

writing groups and courses,

317–318

proofreading, 310–312

review process

archival author and

evaluations, 301

editor’s role, 298

journal editor’s decision,

302–306

peer review, 299–301

secrets, 306–310

technical requirements

literature review update, 295

manuscript checklist, 295–296

manuscript submission,

296–298

submission letter, 293, 294

title page, 293, 295

transformation

OA, 322–324

web 2.0 and NEJM, 321

writers

task, 325

Taylor’s rules, 325–326

Writing books

authored, 190–191, 210–213

book chapters, 191–197

edited, 190–191, 197–210

medical, 189–190, 213–216

Principles and Practice of

Medicine, 189

Writing groups and courses,

317–318

Writing motivation

ability to endure rejection, 2

aspire and determination, 2

assembling resources

books, 15–17

computer programs, 17–18

early steps, 26–29

web sites, 18–23

writing area, 14–15

beginners

book reviews, 27

case report, 27

editors, 27

leading models, 27

need research data, 26

research team and senior,

26–27

topics, 27–28

develop itch writing, 2

early success, 28–29

effort and print work, 2

form and content, 2

key questions, writer, 24–26

knowledge and technical skills, 1

medical literature and articles, 2

mistakes, 28

random thoughts

history, 7–9

reading, 9–10

writing, 10–14

reasons for non writing

colleagues and secretarial help,

7

issues, 5

lack ideas, 6

self-confidence, 7

timing, 5–6

World Wide Web usage, 7

371

372 Index

Writing motivation (Continued)

reasons for writing

broad generalization, 4

clinician investigators and

educators, 4–5

conducting workshops, 3

in-depth knowledge, 4

intellectual stimulation, 5

non profit making, 3

pleasant side effect, 5

reasons, 3–4

understand issues, 1

writer, clinician/faculty, 1

Writing skills

article structure, 35–38

description, 31

fundamental English 101, 31

idea development

good idea, 32–33

incubation, 33–34

topic focusing, 34–35

paragraph development, 38–43

sentences

active vs. passive voice, 43–45

construction, 45–58

misplaced phrases, 50–51

punctuation, 48–50

verbose phrases, 50–51

topic, 31

words

choosing, 59–63

medical words understanding,

52–54

type of, 55–59

Writing team

advantages, 130

guidelines, 131–132

problems, 132–133

Written Communication

in Family Medicine,

196, 198

Z

Zombie, 293

372

acknowledgments - springer978-1-4419-8234... · 2017-08-25 · acknowledgments any single-author...

Documents