ReviewDer Anaesthesist2007
[How do I write an original article? An introduction for beginners].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [A guide to successful public relations for hospitals and emergency medical services].Der Anaesthesist · 2014Review
- How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!CytoJournal · 2012Article
- [Manipulating scientists].Der Anaesthesist · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Less than 50% of abstracts presented on scientific conferences get published as full articles. This manuscript is a hands-on instruction on how to collate a scientific investigation into an article. Criteria for authorship should be decided based on the Vancouver statement. The first step is a description of materials and methods including the statistical analysis (approximately 1,000 words), which should already be done during the study itself. The second step is describing the results without interpretation (approximately 350 words); graphs are better than tables. The discussion (approximately 1,000-1,350 words) is initiated with a short description of the most important results, followed by a defence of the model employed. Subsequently, the mechanisms of the results are discussed and put into context with the results of comparable studies; the clinical implication of the most important aspects should be discussed. This is followed by the limitations of the investigation to allow a realistic classification; the conclusions should be low-key rather than exaggerated. The last step is the introduction (approximately 350 words), which has to "hit the nail on the head" in order to attract the reader; this is followed by the abstract and references. Issues that are absolutely to be avoided are insufficient preparation of the study, no answers to the hypothesis of the study, contradictions within the manuscript, superficial discussion, changing terms, reflexive sentences, and a conclusion that is not supported by the data. The first author and mentor should write the first draft of the manuscript; subsequently, the co-authors have to contribute with constructive critique to improve the article until a final draft has been achieved after several rounds of revision and further critique. A journal should be targeted where the manuscript has a realistic chance of publication. If the reviewer's comments can be answered, a careful revision is always warranted and should be performed even if the editor rejected the manuscript. All parties involved should be informed about each step of the project by the first author in order to ensure enduring success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17333033What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.