ArticleRadiology case reports2013
From the editor's desk: A systematic guide to revising a manuscript.
Article in Radiology case reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Review
- How to deal with revisions?Archives of plastic surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Once a manuscript is submitted, the journal editor decides whether the manuscript merits further peer review, and the section editor or editor-in-chief reviews those comments and makes a decision that is conveyed to the corresponding author. Almost all accepted manuscripts require revisions of some kind. One of the good things about writing a case report is that it does not usually require major revisions; for the most part, comments can be addressed rather quickly with a few changes. The most common revisions requested are providing followup imaging information or additional laboratory/pathology information, shortening the length, and modifying sentences that boast of a major conclusion based on a single case. This article focuses on how to deal with the revision process so that it is smooth for both the author and the editor; and that it leads to a quick acceptance.
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.