Search

Purpose: This study investigated 1) the frequency of quotation errors in multi-authored medical manuscripts in andrology, 2) analyzed common types of quotation errors and the methods used to rectify them, and 3) evaluated their impact on manuscript accuracy, credibility, and research conclusions., Materials and Methods: Twelve manuscripts written by the Global Andrology Forum (GAF) members between 2023 and 2024 were randomly selected for this study. The manuscripts and "Quotation Verification Sheets" were analyzed by senior GAF researchers to detect the number and types of quotation errors. The error rate was calculated by the total number of quotation errors and total number of all cited references in each manuscript. The impact on manuscript sections was assessed using a 0-4 grading scale. The Spearman correlation test was used to assess the correlation between scalar variables, and the Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to compare scalar variables between two groups., Results: The median value of quotation errors was 10.3%. Factual inaccuracy was the most common type of error, and was observed in all twelve manuscripts at various rates. The number of errors was significantly associated with the number of references (ρ=0.706; p=0.010) and in-text citations (ρ=0.636; p=0.026). Factual inaccuracy (ρ=0.588; p=0.044) and factual interpretation (ρ=0.861; p=0.013) were also correlated with the total number of quotation errors. However, no significant associations were found between quotation errors and author numbers or their qualifications. The quotation errors adversely impacted the manuscript discussion, followed by the overall message., Conclusions: Quotation errors are common in multi-authored medical manuscripts in andrology-related scientific articles. Journal editorial offices should incorporate quotation verification into the review process. Limiting references and in-text citations to only strictly necessary ones may help improve quotation accuracy. The quotation verification model proposed by GAF offers a practical and structured approach for detecting and correcting quotation errors., Competing Interests: The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2025 Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology.)

The European Union Clinical Trials Regulation (EU CTR) provides new regulatory requirements for the preparation and submission of clinical trial documents. The United Kingdom Drug Information Association Medical Writing (UK DIA MW) Committee, with members from across the pharmaceutical industry, have reviewed the EU CTR and in this report, provide expert guidance on writing documents for submission in the EU CTR Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) portal. Medical writers should be aware that the Investigator's Brochure containing the Reference Safety Information (RSI) must align with the annual safety report, and the RSI format must comply closely with the EU CTR. For clinical study protocols, medical writers should prepare a single integrated EU protocol that receives consolidated approvals from all participating EU member states, with different versions of a protocol for different EU member states no longer permitted. This report also provides details of experiences and recommendations on protocol synopses from the UK DIA MW Committee. In addition, plain language summaries are new EU CTR documents required for each study presenting summaries of clinical trial results for laypersons. Some of these documents will be published in the publicly accessible CTIS portal which has created concerns amongst many companies who are keen to protect commercially confidential information (CCI). Medical writers may help reduce CCI through lean writing, but specifically identifying CCI may require specialist legal evaluation. This report by the UK DIA MW Committee highlights the key processes for medical writers to ensure compliance with the EU CTR when preparing documents for submission to the CTIS portal., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. The opinions provided in this manuscript represent the collective views of the UK DIA MW Committee, and do not reflect the views of the individual organizations represented by any of the authors on this manuscript., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Drug Information Association, Inc.)

An editorial article is a type of scholarly communication providing expert views and critical analysis of issues. It may reflect the view of the author(s) or of the organization/journal on a certain topic. An editorial may also comment on a published paper. Editorials are expected to be objective, evidence-based, and informative focusing attention on recent developments and matters of current societal/disciplinary concern. This format allows for timely dissemination of expert insight and facilitates ongoing scholarly discourse. The structure of editorials varies: critical, explanatory, and commendatory types serve varied purposes. Authors of editorials should follow certain principles of academic writing. The aim should be provided in an introductory paragraph. Thereafter, a constructive and balanced critique of the index article and/or a detailed yet concise analyze of the subject of matter should be provided. The conclusion paragraph should include brief take-home messages. Critical arguing should be supported by relevant references. A declaration of any potential conflicts of interests is essential to maintain objectivity and fairness. The current article aims to provide a primer, along with a checklist, on writing editorials., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Background: Large language models (LLMs), the most recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), have profoundly affected academic publishing and raised important ethical and practical concerns. This study examined the prevalence and content of AI guidelines in Korean medical journals to assess the current landscape and inform future policy implementation., Methods: The top 100 Korean medical journals determined by Hirsh index were surveyed. Author guidelines were collected and screened by a human researcher and AI chatbot to identify AI-related content. The key components of LLM policies were extracted and compared across journals. The journal characteristics associated with the adoption of AI guidelines were also analyzed., Results: Only 18% of the surveyed journals had LLM guidelines, which is much lower than previously reported in international journals. However, the adoption rates increased over time, reaching 57.1% in the first quarter of 2024. High-impact journals were more likely to have AI guidelines. All journals with LLM guidelines required authors to declare LLM tool use and 94.4% prohibited AI authorship. The key policy components included emphasizing human responsibility (72.2%), discouraging AI-generated content (44.4%), and exempting basic AI tools (38.9%)., Conclusion: While the adoption of LLM guidelines among Korean medical journals is lower than the global trend, there has been a clear increase in implementation over time. The key components of these guidelines align with international standards, but greater standardization and collaboration are needed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of LLMs in medical research and writing.

Introduction: The cover letter is a critical component of medical journal submissions, often influencing acceptance decisions. However, authors frequently underestimate its importance. This narrative review aimed to provide guidance for authors on writing effective and succinct cover letters., Methods: We conducted a narrative review of literature on the recommended structure and content for drafting a cover letter., Results: An effective and succinct cover letter should include the names of the editor in chief and journal, submission details, ethical statements, authors' agreement, and contact information. Additional elements such as declarations of conflicts of interest, funding sources, and permissions may also be necessary. The cover letter should emphasize the manuscript's uniqueness without merely duplicating the abstract., Conclusion: Cover letters remain pivotal for manuscript acceptance and must adhere to specific guidelines.

Editing services within academic health centers are uncommon, and few studies have reported on their impact. In this article, we describe our medical writing center's editing service for faculty and trainees at a pediatric teaching hospital and associated outcomes of scholarly products (e.g., manuscripts and grants) over an 8-year period. Data for manuscripts and grant proposals edited by the writing center from 2015 through 2022 were collected electronically from our service request database. Outcome data on publications and grant proposals were regularly collected up to 12 months post-submission. Users were also asked if the writing center edits were helpful, improved readability, and if they planned to use the service in the future. From 2015 through 2022, the writing center received 697 requests, 88.4% to edit a document. Of the documents edited, 81.3% of manuscripts and 44.4% of grant proposals were successfully published or funded. When rating their experience, 97.8% of respondents rated the edits "helpful," 96.7% indicated the edits "improved readability," and 99.3% stated they planned to use the writing center in the future. Our results showed steady use of the writing center and high satisfaction with services. A writing center can be an effective tool to support psychology faculty development., Competing Interests: Declarations Conflict of interest Heather C. McNeill, Jacqueline D. Hill, Myles Chandler, Eric T. Rush, and Martha Montello declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical Approval The study was deemed non-human subjects research by the Children’s Mercy Kansas City Institutional Review Board (#00002920). Consent to Participate Because this study did not include human subjects, informed consent was not required. Consent for Publication Not applicable., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Challenges: Writing and publishing research is important in the fields of orthopaedic surgery, and medicine in general. In recent years, the number of orthopaedic publications has significantly increased, highlighting the value of possessing the ability to write and publish a paper. However, publishing research is not an easy task, especially if English is not a native language. Non-native English speakers have been reported to experience barriers to writing and publishing research in English, the dominant language of scientific publication. This affects not only individual researchers, but also the scientific community in general. To improve reporting in scientific manuscripts, many peer-reviewed guidelines have been published for a variety of study designs and study types. These guidelines are made available through the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network and have associated checklists that guide authors in the synthesis of their research manuscript., Purpose: Whether you are a non-native English speaker or a novice research writer, these checklists can ameliorate the process of building your manuscript. The purpose of this paper is to empower orthopaedic researchers, and researchers in general, through an easy-to-follow framework for writing a research manuscript using available checklists and general research knowledge., Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval This is a review article, no ethics approval required. Consent to participate This is a review article, no informed consent required. Consent to publish This is a review article, no consent to publish required. Competing interests Cyril Mauffrey, MD is a paid educational consultant for J and J and Stryker and Editor in Chief of the European Journal of Orthopedic Surgery and Trauma (Springer)., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.)

Medical writers assist continuing medical education (CME)/continuing professional development (CPD) providers in planning and delivering educational programmes. Their responsibilities include developing needs assessments and instructional content for accredited CME-CPD. However, to the best of our knowledge, a competency model for training writers who develop CME-CPD materials does not exist. We used a modified Delphi method to identify knowledge areas, skills, attitudes, and deliverables (KSADs) to include in a model for training the next generation of CME writers. Over 3 rounds of questionnaires, we asked a diverse panel of stakeholders to rate an initial set of KSADs, suggest additional KSADs, and provide rationales for their ratings. Panellists rated each KSAD from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) based on whether it should be included in the model. Panellists received anonymised reports of results between rounds and could change their previous ratings. Of 22 panellists who agreed to participate, 20 (90.9%) completed all 3 rounds. Of 83 suggested KSADs, 44 (53%) received a final average rating of at least 4, meeting predefined criteria for consensus. In total, we identified 38 KSAs necessary for CME writers to excel. These KSAs cover a wide range of topics from various fields, including accredited continuing education, medicine and healthcare, and medical writing and communications. We also identified 6 in-demand deliverables, including needs assessments, outcomes questions, slide decks, interactive patient case studies, agendas for proposed educational programmes, and scripts for video or audio recordings. This new competency model may help guide the development of training programmes for medical writers specialising in CME-CPD., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Introduction: The benchmark of a medical thesis' success is often its acceptance for publication in an indexed journal., Aim: To determine the publication rate of practice theses in the field of Cardiology at the Faculty of Medicine of Sousse (FMSo) in Tunisia and to identify predictive factors for successful publication., Methods: We conducted a descriptive bibliometric analysis of Cardiology theses defended at FMSo from 2000 to 2019. Data were extracted from the theses' cover pages, abstracts, and conclusions. The publication status was ascertained via searches in "MEDLINE", "Scopus", and "Google Scholar". Predictive factors for publication were identified using multivariate analysis with a 90% Confidence Interval (CI)., Results: Of the 111 Cardiology theses defended at FMSo between 2000 and 2019, 36 were published yielding 42 scientific articles (publication rate of 32%). Notably, 86% of these articles were indexed in "MEDLINE" and/or "Scopus". In 79% of cases, doctoral candidates were co-authors of the resultant publications. Publication was significantly influenced by three factors: scientific mentorship by an Assistant or Associate Professor (aOR=3.021; 90%CI: 1.06-10.14; p=0.082), a prospective study design (aOR=2.536; 90%CI: 1.07-6.02; p=0.076), and a satisfactory quality of writing (aOR=2.384; 90%CI: 1.11-5.11; p=0.061)., Conclusion: The publication of Cardiology theses at FMSo was found to be associated with the prospective design of the study and the quality of writing. Thus, it is imperative to enhance the research methodology and scientific communication skills of medical thesis candidates and their mentors to facilitate the transition from academic dissertations to medical articles.

Writing is usually integrated in the curriculum of science studies. However, students often lack the skills to write for various audiences or, to produce a well written manuscript. We developed a concise project of 15 European Credits to improve the writing skills in an early phase of the bachelor study. Students worked on texts from various journals and looked at the writing styles. They rewrote texts in a popular and more scientific way and practiced with clear, vivid language, avoiding clutter and hedge words, considering a proper use of grammar and interpunction. Medical writing was also introduced during the project. Grading was based on rewriting for a non-expert and expert audience. A rewritten text was presented to the public in the form of a student-initiated survey. This project shows an inverted approach creating student ownership and enthusiasm for writing. In addition, we created and tested successfully a concise two-day workshop based on this project. Based on the results we herewith present the work as an idea to explore., (© 2024 The Author(s). Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.)

Background/Objectives : The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology is expanding rapidly, with ChatGPT, a large language model (LLM) from OpenAI, showing promise in patient education, clinical decision-making, and teledermatology. Despite its potential, the ethical, clinical, and practical implications of its application remain insufficiently explored. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, challenges, and future prospects of ChatGPT in dermatology, focusing on clinical applications, patient interactions, and medical writing. ChatGPT was selected due to its broad adoption, extensive validation, and strong performance in dermatology-related tasks. Methods : A thorough literature review was conducted, focusing on publications related to ChatGPT and dermatology. The search included articles in English from November 2022 to August 2024, as this period captures the most recent developments following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, ensuring that the review includes the latest advancements and discussions on its role in dermatology. Studies were chosen based on their relevance to clinical applications, patient interactions, and ethical issues. Descriptive metrics, such as average accuracy scores and reliability percentages, were used to summarize study characteristics, and key findings were analyzed. Results : ChatGPT has shown significant potential in passing dermatology specialty exams and providing reliable responses to patient queries, especially for common dermatological conditions. However, it faces limitations in diagnosing complex cases like cutaneous neoplasms, and concerns about the accuracy and completeness of its information persist. Ethical issues, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the need for transparent guidelines, were identified as critical challenges. Conclusions : While ChatGPT has the potential to significantly enhance dermatological practice, particularly in patient education and teledermatology, its integration must be cautious, addressing ethical concerns and complementing, rather than replacing, dermatologist expertise. Future research should refine ChatGPT's diagnostic capabilities, mitigate biases, and develop comprehensive clinical guidelines.

OpenAI's ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is a chatbot that answers questions and performs writing tasks in a conversational tone. Within months of release, multiple sectors are contemplating the varied applications of this chatbot, including medicine, education, and research, all of which are involved in medical communication and scientific publishing. Medical writers and academics use several artificial intelligence (AI) tools and software for research, literature survey, data analyses, referencing, and writing. There are benefits of using different AI tools in medical writing. However, using chatbots for medical communications pose some major concerns such as potential inaccuracies, data bias, security, and ethical issues. Perceived incorrect notions also limit their use. Moreover, ChatGPT can also be challenging if used incorrectly and for irrelevant tasks. If used appropriately, ChatGPT will not only upgrade the knowledge of the medical writer but also save time and energy that could be directed toward more creative and analytical areas requiring expert skill sets. This review introduces chatbots, outlines the progress in ChatGPT research, elaborates the potential uses of ChatGPT in medical communications along with its challenges and limitations, and proposes future research perspectives. It aims to provide guidance for doctors, researchers, and medical writers on the uses of ChatGPT in medical communications., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2023 Perspectives in Clinical Research.)

Correspondence in the form of letters to the editor serves multiple scholarly purposes, including critiquing previously published articles, engaging in discourse with other correspondents, commenting on the journal's structure or style, and contributing insights for future publications. The composition of such letters warrants meticulous attention, as they play a crucial role in fostering communication between the journal and its readership. Adherence to specific principles is essential in crafting an effective letter to the editor. These communications should be concise, lucid, and adhere to a professional tone. The content should be constructive in nature and substantiated by rigorous scientific evidence and appropriate citations. The structure of a letter to the editor typically encompasses several key components: a title, an opening section, the main body of the correspondence, a closing statement, and a list of references. This article aims to establish Letter to the Editor Standards as a comprehensive guide for authors, reviewers, and editorial boards, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of this crucial form of academic discourse., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Workshops or training sessions on medical writing and publishing exist worldwide. We aimed to evaluate published articles about such workshops and examine both the content and teaching strategies employed. We searched ISI Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE, ERIC, Ovid Medline, and the grey literature. We considered no language, geographical location, or time period limitations. We included randomized controlled trials, before-after studies, surveys, cohort studies, and program evaluation and development studies. We descriptively reported the results. Out of 222 articles that underwent a full-text review, 30 were deemed eligible. The educational sessions were sporadic, with researchers often developing their own content and methods. Fifteen articles reported teaching the standard structure of medical articles, ten articles reported on teaching optimal English language use for writing articles, nine articles discussed publication ethics issues, and three articles discussed publication strategies to enhance the chance of publication. Most reports lacked in-depth descriptions of the content and strategies used, and the approach to those topics was relatively superficial. Existing workshops have covered topics such as the standard structure of articles, publication ethics, techniques for improving publication rates, and how to use the English language. However, many other topics are left uncovered. The reports and practice of academic-teaching courses should be improved.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research, yet ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research, statisticians and trialists from academia and industry, identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and CONSORT harms guidelines, and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces seven new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research., (© 2024 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.)

The debate surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing has already attracted significant interest in medical and life sciences. While AI can undoubtedly expedite the process of manuscript creation and correction, it raises several criticisms. The crossover between AI and health sciences is relatively recent, but the use of AI tools among physicians and other scientists who work in the life sciences is growing very fast. Within this whirlwind, it is becoming essential to realize where we are heading and what the limits are, including an ethical perspective. Modern conversational AIs exhibit a context awareness that enables them to understand and remember any conversation beyond any predefined script. Even more impressively, they can learn and adapt as they engage with a growing volume of human language input. They all share neural networks as background mathematical models and differ from old chatbots for their use of a specific network architecture called transformer model [1]. Some of them exceed 100 terabytes (TB) (e.g., Bloom, LaMDA) or even 500 TB (e.g., Megatron-Turing NLG) of text data, the 4.0 version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was trained with nearly 45 TB, but stays updated by the internet connection and may integrate with different plugins that enhance its functionality, making it multimodal., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Luca Liberale - Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Daiichi-Sankyo. Patents planned, issued or pending: co-inventor on the international patent WO/2020/226,993 filed in April 2020. There are no other conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.

Objectives: Proficiency in medical writing and publishing is essential for medical researchers. Workshops can play a valuable role in addressing these issues. However, there is a lack of systematic summaries of evidence on the evaluation of their impacts. So, in this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate all articles published on the impact of such workshops worldwide., Methods: We searched Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Medline, ISI Web of Science, ERIC database, and grey literature with no language, time period, or geographical location limitations. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, before-after studies, surveys, and program evaluation and development studies were included. We performed a meta-analysis on data related to knowledge increase after the workshops and descriptively reported the evaluation of other articles that did not have sufficient data for a meta-analysis. All analyses were performed using Stata software, version 15.0., Results: Of 23 040 reports, 222 articles underwent full-text review, leading to 45 articles reporting the impacts of workshops. Overall, the reports on the impact of such workshops were incomplete or lacked the necessary precision to draw acceptable conclusions. The workshops were sporadic, and researchers used their own method of assessment. Meta-analyses of the impact on the knowledge showed that workshops could nonsignificantly increase the mean or percentage of participants' knowledge., Conclusion: In the absence of systematic academic courses on medical writing/publishing, workshops are conducted worldwide; however, reports on educational activities during such workshops, the methods of presentations, and their curricula are incomplete and vary. Their impact is not evaluated using standardized methods, and no valid and reliable measurement tools have been employed for these assessments., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

The publication landscape for case reports has undergone a significant shift, with many high-impact journals deprioritizing or ceasing their publication altogether. This trend has led to the emergence of case-based reviews as an alternative to traditional case reports. Several factors drive this shift. Case-based reviews offer a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature compared to single case reports. They employ systematic search methodologies, reducing the risk of excluding relevant data, and providing robust evidence. From a publisher's perspective, case-based reviews have a greater potential for citation. While recommendations exist for writing traditional case reports, such as the CAse REports (CARE) guidelines, there is a lack of published recommendations for composing case-based reviews. This review aims to address this gap by providing guidance on drafting high-quality case-based reviews., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Background : When properly utilized, artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC) may improve virtually every aspect of research, from data gathering to synthesis. Nevertheless, when used inappropriately, the use of AIGC may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate information and introduce potential ethical concerns. Research Design : Cross-sectional. Study Sample: 65 top surgical journals. Data Collection: Each journals submission guidelines and portal was queried for guidelines regarding AIGC use. Results : We found that, in July 2023, 60% of the top 65 surgical journals had introduced guidelines for use, with more surgical journals (68%) introducing guidelines than surgical subspecialty journals (52.5%), including otolaryngology (40%). Furthermore, of the 39 with guidelines, only 69.2% gave specific use guidelines. No included journal, at the time of analysis, explicitly disallowed AIGC use. Conclusions : Altogether, this data suggests that while many journals have quickly reacted to AIGC usage, the quality of such guidelines is still variable. This should be pre-emptively addressed within academia., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown., Methods: Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020)., Results: The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374)., Conclusions: There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of prior imaging review on recommendations for additional diagnostic testing in an academic chiropractic radiology practice. A secondary aim was to explore the influence of prior imaging review on radiographic interpretation., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed radiology reports generated from July 18, 2022, to July 18, 2023, from the Palmer College of Chiropractic main campus (Davenport, Iowa) clinic system. Imaging interpretation included an automated search for prior images in an internal picture archival and communication system (PACS). Images from regional health system databases were available and sought by radiologists when (1) unclear radiologic findings had potential clinical implications or (2) prior imaging could clarify potential problems detected in a clinical history. Data were abstracted to a secure adaptive electronic questionnaire and analyzed descriptively., Results: We reviewed 1712 radiographic and 165 musculoskeletal diagnostic ultrasound reports for 1552 unique individuals (811 [52.3%] females and 741 [47.7%] males) with a mean age of 42.1 years (range, 2-93 years). Prior imaging was described in 417 (22.2%) reports; 246 (58.9%) indicated images from internal PACS, 192 (46.0%) indicated images from external PACS, and 21 noted both internal and external PACS. Prior imaging findings were credited with answering a clinical question in 98 (23.5%), and a radiographic question in 228 (54.7%) of 417 reports. The process negated the need for follow-up diagnostic testing recommendations in 119 (28.5%) instances, leading to additional imaging recommendations in 19 (4.6%)., Conclusion: Data obtained in this study suggest that comparing current and previous imaging may help reduce unnecessary additional imaging or follow-up diagnostic testing recommendations. Prior imaging review may also facilitate diagnostic confidence and interpretation clarity., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: To investigate the ways that nurses engage with referral letters and discharge summaries, and the qualities of these documents they find valuable for safe and effective practice., Design: This study comprised a qualitative, case-study design within a constructivist paradigm using convenience sampling., Methods: Interviews were conducted with nurses to investigate their practices relating to referral letters and discharge summaries. Data collection also involved nurses' examination and evaluation of a diverse range of 10 referral letters and discharge summaries from medical records at two Australian hospitals through focus-group sessions. The data were transcribed and analysed inductively., Results: In all, 67 nurses participated in interviews or focus groups. Nurses indicated they used referral letters and discharge summaries to inform their work when caring for patients at different times throughout their hospitalisation. These documents assisted them with verbal handovers, to enable them to educate patients about their condition and treatment and to provide a high standard of care. The qualities of referral letters and discharge summaries that they most valued were language and communication, an awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information., Conclusion: Nurses relied on referral letters and discharge summaries to ensure safe and effective patient care. They used these documents to enhance their verbal handovers, contribute to patient care and to educate the patient about their condition and treatment. They identified several qualities of these documents that assisted them in maintaining patient safety including clarity and conciseness of information., Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: It is important that referral letters and discharge summaries are written clearly, concisely and comprehensively because nurses use them as key sources of evidence in planning and delivering care, and in communicating with other health professionals in relaying goals of care and implementing treatment plans., Impact: Nurses reported that they regularly used referral letters and discharge summaries as valuable sources of evidence throughout their patients' hospitalisation. The qualities of these documents which they most valued were language and communication styles, awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information. This research has important impact on the patient experience in relation to encouraging effective referral letter and discharge summary writing., Reporting Method: We have adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines through the SRQR reporting method., Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Currently, there are limited options for patients with visual impairment or blindness to obtain accessible written medication information., Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the availability of accessible medication guides provided by the manufacturer and identify common barriers reported by patients with visual impairment in obtaining accessible written medication information in health care settings., Design: Prospective, cross-sectional study., Setting and Participants: Participants of the survey portion included individuals with visual impairment who were administered an online questionnaire., Outcome Measures: Availability of accessible medication guides as verified by 39 manufacturers and accessibility assessed using a checklist based on revised Section 508 guidelines and testing with a screen reader for accessibility. To identify barriers in obtaining written medication information, respondents were recruited by Qualtrics to fill out an anonymous, online 13-question survey from September to October 2022., Results: All manufacturers did not provide an accessible medication guide or an alternative format. Common errors found by the screen reader were lack of a description for images (alternative text) and headings were not available to help with navigation. As for the survey, a total of 699 participants responded. The median age was 35 years and 49% of respondents were female. A paper copy was the most common format (38%) provided in the pharmacy and barriers identified included lack of Braille or electronic options and personnel not equipped to serve patients with visual impairment., Conclusion: With the lack of accessible written medication information as a barrier to health equity, pharmacists and manufacturers need to provide alternative formats such as audio, electronic formats, or Braille to patients with visual impairment., (Copyright © 2023 American Pharmacists Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The demand for medical writing is on the rise in academic and medical entities worldwide. However, a huge disparity in the perception of professional medical writing arises from inadequate education and regularity in service quality and potential ethical challenges. Hence, we aimed to examine the knowledge, attitude, and perception toward professional medical writing support (PMWS) of healthcare professionals at King Fahad Medical City (KFMC)., Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire that was validated for its accuracy and clarity by an expert panel in academic integrity. The self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 200 healthcare professionals from a broad range of specialties throughout KFMC. The socio-demographic characteristics and healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions were recorded. The responses were quantitatively evaluated using a 5-point Likert Scale and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 25 (IBM, New York, United States)., Results: 162 healthcare professionals in KFMC filled in the questionnaire completely. Most respondents agreed that it was acceptable for medical writers to help with writing publications and that they offered a valuable service. Concerning association with socio-demographic characteristics, the mean score of knowledge was found to be significantly related to those with age ≥45 years (p<0.001), PhD degree (p=0.044), >5 years of research experience (p<0.001), and being a faculty/consultant (p=0.005). No significant association was found with the mean total score of attitude. Participants having >5 years of research experience were found to have a higher significant level of perception (p=0.004)., Conclusions: Our study highlights that PMWS is relatively well-utilized and perceived positively within KFMC. There is a need for further research and education of ethics regarding the use of PMWS., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, AlOtaiby et al.)

Background: The popularity of medical writing workshops highlights the need for a standard measurement tool to assess the impact of such workshops on participants' confidence in: 1- writing a standard article and 2- using optimal English language. Because such an instrument is not yet available, we undertook this study to devise and evaluate the first measurement tool to assess such confidence., Method: We created an item pool of 50 items by searching Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics to find related articles, using our prior experience, and approaching the key informants. We revised and edited the item pool, and redundant ones were excluded. Finally, the 36-item tool comprised two domains. We tested it in a group of workshop applicants for internal consistency and temporal reliability using Cronbach's α and Pearson correlations and for content and convergent validity using the content validity index and Pearson correlations., Results: The participants had a mean age of 40.3 years, a female predominance (74.3%), and a majority of faculty members (51.4%). The internal consistency showed high reliability (> 0.95). Test-retest reliability showed very high correlations (r = 0.93). The CVI for domain 1 was 0.78, for domain 2 was 0.73, and for the entire instrument was 0.75., Conclusion: This unique, reliable, and valid measurement tool could accurately measure the level of confidence in writing a standard medical article and in using the appropriate English language for this purpose., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Astaneh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

ChatGPT, a large language model, has gained significance in medical writing, particularly in case reports that document the course of an illness. This article explores the integration of ChatGPT and how ChatGPT shapes the process, product, and politics of medical writing in the real world. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on case reports utilizing ChatGPT and indexed in PubMed, encompassing publication information. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis was conducted to categorize the applications and limitations of ChatGPT and the publication trend of application categories. A total of 66 case reports utilizing ChatGPT were identified, with a predominant preference for the online version and English input by the authors. The prevalent application categories were information retrieval and content generation. Notably, this trend remained consistent across different months. Within the subset of 32 articles addressing ChatGPT limitations in case report writing, concerns related to inaccuracies and a lack of clinical context were prominently emphasized. This pointed out the important role of clinical thinking and professional expertise, representing the foundational tenets of medical education, while also accentuating the distinction between physicians and generative artificial intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models continue to expand in both access and capability. As these models have evolved, the number of academic journals in medicine and healthcare which have explored policies regarding AI-generated text has increased. The implementation of such policies requires accurate AI detection tools. Inaccurate detectors risk unnecessary penalties for human authors and/or may compromise the effective enforcement of guidelines against AI-generated content. Yet, the accuracy of AI text detection tools in identifying human-written versus AI-generated content has been found to vary across published studies. This experimental study used a sample of behavioral health publications and found problematic false positive and false negative rates from both free and paid AI detection tools. The study assessed 100 research articles from 2016-2018 in behavioral health and psychiatry journals and 200 texts produced by AI chatbots (100 by "ChatGPT" and 100 by "Claude"). The free AI detector showed a median of 27.2% for the proportion of academic text identified as AI-generated, while commercial software Originality.AI demonstrated better performance but still had limitations, especially in detecting texts generated by Claude. These error rates raise doubts about relying on AI detectors to enforce strict policies around AI text generation in behavioral health publications.

Aim: To describe the scientific editorial quality of practice theses defended at the Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy of Bamako (Mali), during the period 2016-2018., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted on practice theses in health science, defended between 2016 and 2018, and the electronic version of which was available at the libraries of the Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy in Bamako. An adjusted STROBE grid was used to measure a scientific editorial conformity score for 18 iso-weighted items of the IMRaD structure (i.e. a total of 18 points). In this way, the scientific editorial quality of practice theses in health sciences was judged to be highly conform (14-18 points), fairly conform (9-13 points), poorly conform (5-8 points), or not conform (<5 points). An ordinal logistic regression model was used to identify determining factors independently associated with the scientific editorial quality of the health sciences practice thesis, with a significance level of 5%., Results: A total of 534 practice theses in health sciences were included in this study, whose scientific editorial quality was judged to be highly or fairly conform (12.2%), poorly conform (43.1%) or not conform (44.8%). These standards scientific editorial conformity, which was higher in a "Medicine" thesis than in a "Pharmacy" thesis (ORa=2.45; IC95% [1.62-3.27], p<=0.05), was attributed to the supervisor's membership of a research structure (ORa=2.88; IC95% [1.6-3.2]; p<0.05)., Conclusion: The research methodology profile of the practice health sciences thesis supervisor and the thesis section are associated with scientific editorial standard with the IMRaD.

Objectives: To evaluate the use of EQUATOR guidelines in scientific articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022. The aim was also to translate the most widely used guidelines into French, in order to promote their dissemination and use in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery., Method: The SWiM guidelines were used. Articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed bibliographic database. Editorials, Letters to the Editor and "What is your diagnosis" articles that did not meet any EQUATOR guidelines were excluded from the analysis., Results: Of the 149 eligible published articles, 21.5% (n=32/149) mentioned use of such a guideline. Guideline use by the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases author community progressed from 0% in 2020 to 8% in 2021 and 63% in 2022., Conclusion: The analysis carried out in this article and the availability of the French version of the seven EQUATOR guidelines most widely used in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases could stimulate application and compliance by authors who submit their work to the journal of the French and international French-speaking societies of otorhinolaryngology., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

With the advent of the era of digitalization, a new door has opened for the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools/algorithms that can help analyse the huge amount of data uploaded onto the cloud. AI-based tools/algorithms have created a niche in the field of research. AI has enabled researchers and practitioners to access and evaluate an enormous number of scientific papers more effectively. This can link similar studies from the past and highlight research gaps, thus accelerating the literature review, evidence generation, and knowledge discovery process. Medical students can obtain help from various AI-based solutions for literature organization and citations. These tools/algorithms facilitate secure information exchange, collaborative research efforts, and communication among multiple research centres. However, AI-driven research requires the guidance and supervision of human experts for better accuracy, coherence, and credibility of the content entering scientific databases. The key objective of this review is to discuss and evaluate various AI-based tools/algorithms and their key features that can assist medical students in medical research., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Jhajj et al.)

Background: Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are at the core of publication ethics, and language around DEI has been shown to affect patient outcomes. Inclusive language is an important piece of effective communication and is one way to demonstrate and foster a welcoming, respectful, and accessible environment. Non-inclusive terminology in research may represent implicit bias, which is not typically corrected through introspection; thus, a systematic approach is needed in scientific writing. The prevalence of inclusive language guidance in leading medical journals is currently unknown., Objective: Investigators assess the prevalence and quality of inclusive language guidelines in author instructions in highly cited English language medical journals., Design: A cross-sectional review of author instructions from a convenience sample of 100 highly cited medical journals was completed in January 2023., Subjects: Each journal's author instructions were reviewed for presence of inclusive language guidelines for manuscript submissions., Main Measures: Guidelines that included specific examples of inclusive language were defined as "strong." Author instructions were also reviewed for the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, and each journal's publisher and impact factor (IF) were recorded., Key Results: The 100 journals reviewed had an IF range of 3.0-202.7 with a median IF = 19.5 (IQR 11.95, 38.68), and 28 unique publishers were represented. Inclusive language guidance was provided in 23% of medical journals reviewed. Of those, 20 (86.9%) provided strong guidance. Seven journals also recommended use of the SAGER checklist., Conclusion: Significant gaps still exist in ensuring use of inclusive language in medical journals., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Introduction: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work., Aim: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal., Method: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process., Results: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts., Conclusion: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Too many articles are still rejected by scientific medical journals due to lack of preparation of the manuscript and of knowledge of the modern editorial rules that govern scientific medical writing. Therefore, the editorial board of the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Heads & Neck Diseases summarized studies published by its members since 2020 in the columns of the scientific journal of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology and the International Francophone Society of Otorhinolaryngology and data from the PubMed indexed literature dedicated to scientific medical writing in otolaryngology in the 21st century. The authors hope that this review, in the form of a list of "Dos and Don'ts", will provide authors with a practical guide facilitating publication of rigorous, reproducible and transparent scientific studies, in accordance with the movement toward better science that society as a whole has been fighting for since the beginning of this century., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT, which is based on a large language model (LLM), is gaining popularity in academic institutions, notably in the medical field. This article provides a brief overview of the capabilities of ChatGPT for medical writing and its implications for academic integrity. It provides a list of AI generative tools, common use of AI generative tools for medical writing, and provides a list of AI generative text detection tools. It also provides recommendations for policymakers, information professionals, and medical faculty for the constructive use of AI generative tools and related technology. It also highlights the role of health sciences librarians and educators in protecting students from generating text through ChatGPT in their academic work., (© 2023 Health Libraries Group.)

Competing Interests: None.

Plagiarism is among the prevalent misconducts reported in scientific writing and common causes of article retraction in scholarly journals. Plagiarism of idea is not acceptable by any means. However, plagiarism of text is a matter of debate from culture to culture. Herein, I wish to reflect on a bird's eye view of plagiarism, particularly plagiarism of text, in scientific writing. Text similarity score as a signal of text plagiarism is not an appropriate index and an expert should examine the similarity with enough scrutiny. Text recycling in certain instances might be acceptable in scientific writing provided that the authors could correctly construe the text piece they borrowed. With introduction of artificial intelligence-based units, which help authors to write their manuscripts, the incidence of text plagiarism might increase. However, after a while, when a universal artificial unit takes over, no one will need to worry about text plagiarism as the incentive to commit plagiarism will be abolished, I believe., Competing Interests: The author has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Background: The objective of this study was to develop a guideline on how to report result of a population-based cancer registry. Methods: The guideline's development involved a core working committee and a scientific committee comprising experts from diverse domains. The process comprised three steps: 1) a comprehensive review of existing tools and guidelines and the development of the initial draft of the guideline based on a review of literature, 2) refinement items through several rounds of focus group discussion among the core group, and development initial draft, and 3) Evaluation of the initial draft by scientific committee members. Items in the guideline were organized to accommodate reports of population-based cancer registries as a scientific manuscript. Results: The core committee developed 47 items distributed in the major heading of a scientific manuscript presented as a checklist. The evaluation of the scientific committee led to a consensus on the majority of the items included in the checklist. Among 10 committee members, 7 provided unreserved approval, validating each item's necessity, applicability, and comprehensibility in the checklist. Feedback from the remaining 3 members was carefully analyzed and integrated to enhance the guideline's robustness. Incorporating feedback, a first final draft was presented in a meeting of scientific and core working committee members. Collaborative discussion ensured clarity of expression for each items and a final checklist was developed. Conclusion: The guideline abbreviated as REPCAN offers a standardized framework for reporting population-based cancer registry, fostering transparency, comparability, and comprehensive data presentation. The guideline encourages flexibility while promoting comprehensive and robust reporting practices.

Clinical trials are essential for medical research, but they often face challenges in matching patients to trials and planning. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution, signaling a transformative shift in the field of clinical trials. This review explores the multifaceted applications of LLMs within clinical trials, focusing on five main areas expected to be implemented in the near future: enhancing patient-trial matching, streamlining clinical trial planning, analyzing free text narratives for coding and classification, assisting in technical writing tasks, and providing cognizant consent via LLM-powered chatbots. While the application of LLMs is promising, it poses challenges such as accuracy validation and legal concerns. The convergence of LLMs with clinical trials has the potential to revolutionize the efficiency of clinical trials, paving the way for innovative methodologies and enhancing patient engagement. However, this development requires careful consideration and investment to overcome potential hurdles., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: - Authors: Nothing to declare - Reviewers: Nothing to declare - Editors: Nothing to declare Reviewer: This article was reviewed by peer experts who are not TCP editors., (Copyright © 2023 Translational and Clinical Pharmacology.)