ReviewInternational orthopaedics2014
Setting standards for medical writing in orthopaedics.
Review in International orthopaedics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The art of orthopaedic publishing: a journey through the author-editor-publisher dynamic.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Writing for "internal orthopaedics": referencing quality citations.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Writing for "International Orthopaedics": authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Useful and useless publications measured by bibliometrics and scientometrics in orthopaedic surgery. Are the relevance of a journal and publication metrics useful enough for the scientific promotion of surgeons?International orthopaedics · 2020Article
- Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.International orthopaedics · 2019Review
- Reviews, reviewers and reviewing.International orthopaedics · 2017Article
- International Orthopaedics is 4O years old!International orthopaedics · 2016Article
- Attractive papers and accurate English.International orthopaedics · 2016Article
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
Once the privilege of few clinical scholars in the field of orthopaedics, medical writing has become a must for career advancement. The number of papers submitted and published yearly has increased steadily, and with the development of the Internet, manuscript and journals have become easily accessible. Medical writing has risen to become a discipline in itself, with rules and standards. However, heterogeneity in the quality of papers submitted still prevails, with large variations in both form and content. With countries such as China and India submitting an exponential number of manuscripts, it is important and helpful that standards of medical writing be emphasised to help writers who do not always have the required support to produce an outstanding manuscript. In this paper, we summarise what may become standards for medical writing in the field of orthopaedics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.