BMJ and Lancet rank among the most clinically relevant medical journals
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A small number of general, broad interest journals contain the most clinically relevant information for doctors, according to a major review.
The review was conducted by a group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. The Health Information Research Unit of the university抯 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics publishes several secondary 揺vidence-based?journals. In 2,000 the unit prepared ACP Journal Club (ACP J Club) to support internal medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) to support general and family practice.
The authors of the review found that four journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet and the Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews) provided 56.5% of the content for the internal medicine review journal ACP Journal Club. Twenty seven titles supplied the other 43.5%.
For Evidence-Based Medicine (the journal used as the indicator of relevance for general/family practice), five titles (BMJ, Lancet, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Archives of Disease in Childhood and Annals of Internal Medicine) supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%.
Just over half (53%) of the content in the mental health review journal Evidence-Based Mental Health was taken from only nine journals.
The study, funded by the US National Library of Medicine, rated 170 North American and European medical journals according to the number of clinically useful articles they published (BMC Medicine 2004;2:33). The researchers assessed more than 60000 articles published in the journals during 2000 for their clinical relevance and importance.
One of the group, Ann McKibbon, an associate professor at McMaster University, explained: 揥e wanted to assess how 憄roductive?some of the more important journals were for clinicians.?
Articles included in the analysis had to be about the health care of humans, have at least one clinically important outcome, and contain appropriate statistical analyses. They also had to be approved by an editorial group of practising clinicians who confirmed that the findings were not already known or applied and that the condition discussed was not a rare one. A total of 3059 original research articles and 1073 review articles met the inclusion criteria in eight categories.
Ms McKibbon commented on the main findings: 揥e found that the majority of important articles for each discipline were sequestered in a small subset of journals.?
The analysis found that what made some journals more useful to clinicians than others was a combination of the number of clinically important studies published together with the importance of studies?content to the health care of patients.
Ms McKibbon explained: 揂n ideal clinically relevant study is one that has good methodology, addresses an important clinical topic, and has feasible and easily implementable actions (for example, if a study is with a particular drug, the drug is readily available) and the results carry implications for change in the current care process.?She warned: 揟hese 慽deal?clinical articles are very rare.?
The researchers hope that their findings will help clinicians focus their full reading of texts. They suggested that because journals and books are the main source of clinical information it is important that clinicians choose carefully which journals to subscribe to and read.
Ms McKibbon concluded, 揅linicians need to carefully choose which journals to read to keep up to date and may need to consider reviewing some of the abstract journals such as ACP Journal Club or Evidence-Based Medicine to ensure full coverage of the clinical research in their areas of practice.?(Susan Mayor)
The review was conducted by a group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. The Health Information Research Unit of the university抯 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics publishes several secondary 揺vidence-based?journals. In 2,000 the unit prepared ACP Journal Club (ACP J Club) to support internal medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) to support general and family practice.
The authors of the review found that four journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet and the Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews) provided 56.5% of the content for the internal medicine review journal ACP Journal Club. Twenty seven titles supplied the other 43.5%.
For Evidence-Based Medicine (the journal used as the indicator of relevance for general/family practice), five titles (BMJ, Lancet, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Archives of Disease in Childhood and Annals of Internal Medicine) supplied 50.7% of the articles and 40 titles supplied the remaining 49.3%.
Just over half (53%) of the content in the mental health review journal Evidence-Based Mental Health was taken from only nine journals.
The study, funded by the US National Library of Medicine, rated 170 North American and European medical journals according to the number of clinically useful articles they published (BMC Medicine 2004;2:33). The researchers assessed more than 60
One of the group, Ann McKibbon, an associate professor at McMaster University, explained: 揥e wanted to assess how 憄roductive?some of the more important journals were for clinicians.?
Articles included in the analysis had to be about the health care of humans, have at least one clinically important outcome, and contain appropriate statistical analyses. They also had to be approved by an editorial group of practising clinicians who confirmed that the findings were not already known or applied and that the condition discussed was not a rare one. A total of 3059 original research articles and 1073 review articles met the inclusion criteria in eight categories.
Ms McKibbon commented on the main findings: 揥e found that the majority of important articles for each discipline were sequestered in a small subset of journals.?
The analysis found that what made some journals more useful to clinicians than others was a combination of the number of clinically important studies published together with the importance of studies?content to the health care of patients.
Ms McKibbon explained: 揂n ideal clinically relevant study is one that has good methodology, addresses an important clinical topic, and has feasible and easily implementable actions (for example, if a study is with a particular drug, the drug is readily available) and the results carry implications for change in the current care process.?She warned: 揟hese 慽deal?clinical articles are very rare.?
The researchers hope that their findings will help clinicians focus their full reading of texts. They suggested that because journals and books are the main source of clinical information it is important that clinicians choose carefully which journals to subscribe to and read.
Ms McKibbon concluded, 揅linicians need to carefully choose which journals to read to keep up to date and may need to consider reviewing some of the abstract journals such as ACP Journal Club or Evidence-Based Medicine to ensure full coverage of the clinical research in their areas of practice.?(Susan Mayor)