Search

Purpose: The purpose of this survey was to create a list of essential historical and contemporary readings for undergraduate and graduate students in the field of exercise physiology. Methods: Fifty-two exercise physiologists/sport scientists served as referees, and each nominated ∼25 papers for inclusion in the list. In total, 396 papers were nominated by the referees. This list was then sent back to the referees, with the instructions to nominate the "100 essential papers in sports and exercise physiology." Results: The referees cast 4722 votes. The 100 papers with the highest number of votes received 51% (2406) of the total number of votes. A total of 37 papers in the list of "100 essential papers" were published >50 years ago, and 63 papers were published since 1973. Conclusions: This list of essential studies will provide a perspective on contemporary studies, the "giant's shoulders" to enable young scholars to "see further" or to understand where they have "come from." This compilation is also meant to impress on students that, given the (lack of) technology available in the past, some of the early science required enormous intuitive leaps on the part of historical scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Methods Results Conclusions Artificial intelligence, especially ChatGPT, has been used in various aspects of medicine; however, whether ChatGPT can be used in case report writing is unknown. This study aimed to provoke discussion and provide a platform for it.I wrote a theoretical case report where cyst aspiration cured a twisted ovarian cyst (Manuscript 4). I tasked ChatGPT with generating case reports by inputting information at three different levels: (1) key message and case profile, (2) addition of key introduction information (including known facts and problems to be solved), and (3) further addition of main discussion points. These inputs resulted in the creation of Manuscripts 1–3, which were subjected to analysis. Manuscript 3, generated by ChatGPT with the deepest information input, was compared with Manuscript 4, the human‐authored counterpart.With the least information, Manuscript 1 can stand on its own, but its content is superficial. The more detailed data input, the more readable and reasonable the manuscripts become. A human‐written manuscript involves personal experience and viewpoints other than obstetrics‐gynecology.Better input produced more reasonable and readable case reports. Human‐written paper, compared with ChatGPT‐generated one, can involve “human touch.” Whether such human touch enriches the case report awaits further discussion. Whether ChatGPT can be used in case report writing, and if it can, to what extent, should be worthy of further study. I encourage every doctor to form their own stance towards ChatGPT use in medical writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming medical writing, raising ethical and quality concerns. • Med-PaLM 2 achieved 86.5 % on the USMLE but had low scientific consensus about adherence. • While AI tools can undoubtedly enhance literature review, statistical analysis, and translation processes, they faces several criticisms. • Threats include increased research waste, low-quality papers, and fraudulent publications. • Regulation and ethical frameworks are essential for managing AI's impact on science. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have introduced transformative capabilities that are revolutionizing the process of scientific research and communication. AI tools can assist researchers in designing studies, analyzing data, and drafting manuscripts, enhancing both efficiency and analytical rigor. This allows researchers to focus cognitive resources on higher-level conceptualization and interpretation. Furthermore, AI holds promise for steering research towards more impactful directions by aiding in the identification of critical knowledge gaps and research questions with potential societal benefits. Collaboration platforms powered by AI facilitate connections between researchers across domains and institutions, accelerating discovery and promoting convergence around global health priorities. However, responsible development and application of AI in research is essential. Transparency, explainability, data privacy, and human oversight must remain priorities to ensure ethical AI practices. While AI offers transformative capabilities, researchers must maintain agency and responsibility over the scientific process. With thoughtful governance and participatory design, AI can become a powerful tool for advancing science in the service of society. Overall, AI ushers in new potentials for improving the rigor, relevance, and reach of scientific inquiry. Yet realization of this potential necessitates proactive efforts to address emerging risks and challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Academic performance is essential in medical education, yet comprehensive training programs addressing this need are lacking. Simulation‐based learning has emerged as a valuable tool for developing clinical skills, with the Anatomage table offering a virtual platform to enhance learning experiences. This study aimed to assess the impact of utilizing the Anatomage table on the academic performance and similarity of case reports among seventh‐semester medical students. Methods: A total of 68 students participated, with 25 using paper‐based medical history and 43 using the Anatomage table. Descriptive statistics and Turnitin were employed for data analysis. Results: Students using the Anatomage table exhibited higher academic performance and lower similarity percentages compared to those using paper‐based medical history. Conclusion: These findings highlight the benefits of integrating advanced technology into medical education to enhance learning outcomes and prepare students for clinical practice. Further investigation is required to improve the effectiveness of simulation‐based learning in enhancing academic performance of medical students. Practice Points: The usage of Anatomage table can provide a more individualized and interactive approach in writing of case reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proficiency in medical writing is crucial for disseminating reports of medical studies. The impact of workshops in this regard on participants' confidence is a subject of debate. We assessed the impact of a hands-on workshop on participants' confidence in medical writing. Participants of a 2-day "learning-by-doing" workshop held at McMaster University participated in this before-after study. We used a unique, reliable, and valid tool comprising two domains of confidence in medical writing and using English language before and after receiving the educational intervention. Of 25 participants, 21 completed the instrument before and after the workshop. Typical participants were female, and students in their 30s, who had not attended a prior workshop. The mean (95% CI) increase in the participants' confidence for domain 1 was 15.3 (10.5, 20.1), for domain 2 was 16.8 (9.8, 23.8), and for the total score was 32.1 (20.9, 43.2) (all P<0.001). Between-subgroup analyses showed the score increase was significantly higher in participants with less than 5 years of experience in medical research. The workshop had a positive impact on enhancing participants' confidence in writing skills, including using active verbs, crafting short sentences, summarizing main findings, and adhering to checklists like CONSORT. Hands-on medical writing workshops can boost participants' confidence in writing medical articles and using optimal English language. Targeting junior researchers and graduate students could result in a better outcome. Emphasizing the writing areas where participants achieved higher score changes might yield better outcomes for such workshops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars in the medical field have described medical writing as particularly challenging and have called for instructional support for both novice writers and L2-English medical scholars. One of the main challenges is that there exist conventionalized terms that express a wide range of concepts, and any inappropriate use of such terms can lead to miscommunication with real consequences for practitioners, researchers, and the public. Therefore, the investigations of such conventionalized expressions could constitute a good starting point in addressing some of the challenges in medical writing. Thus, the present study investigates the use of multiword collocations (a type of register-specific word combinations) in medical research articles and the medical case reports, using two corpora of over a million words, representative of the two registers. The subsequent structural and functional analyses revealed that the majority of multiword collocations in both registers consisted of complex noun phrases mostly formed through noun premodifications (e.g., fine needle aspiration, fluorescence in situ hybridization, single nucleotide polymorphisms). The identified sequences served distinct discourse functions that reflect the differences in the specific communicative functions of the two registers. Some pedagogical applications are suggested in this paper. • Specialized corpora yield multiword sequences with register-specific discourse functions. • Delta P can measure the collocational strength of sequences longer than two words. • The use of multiword collocations varies across registers even within a same discipline. • Noun premodification is key in achieving conciseness in medical writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Analysis of X (formerly Twitter) posts can inform on the interest/perceptions that social media users have on health subjects. In this study, we aimed to analyse tweets on allergic conditions, comparing them with surveillance data. Methods: We retrieved tweets from England on "allergy," "asthma," and "allergic rhinitis," published between 2016 and 2021. We estimated the correlation between the frequency of tweets on "asthma" and "allergic rhinitis" and English surveillance data on the incidence of asthma and allergic rhinitis medical visits. We performed sentiment analysis, computing a score informing on the emotional tone of assessed tweets. We applied a topic modelling approach to identify topics (clusters of words frequently occurring together) for tweets on each assessed condition. Results: We analysed a total of 13,605 tweets on "allergy," 7767 tweets on "asthma," and 11,974 tweets on "allergic rhinitis." Food‐related words were preponderant on tweets on "allergy," while "eyes" was the most frequent meaningful word on "allergy rhinitis" tweets. We observed seasonal patterns for tweets on "allergic rhinitis," both in their frequency and sentiment – the incidence of allergic rhinitis medical visits was moderately to strongly correlated with the frequency (ρ = 0.866) and sentiment (ρ = −0.474) of tweets on "allergic rhinitis." For tweets on "asthma," no such patterns/correlations were observed. The average sentiment score was negative for all assessed conditions, ranging from −0.004 ("asthma") to −0.083 ("allergic rhinitis"). Conclusions: Tweets on "allergic rhinitis" displayed a seasonal pattern regarding their frequency and sentiment, which correlated with surveillance data. No such patterns were observed for "asthma." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article encourages participation in research by highlighting the first step of beginning a research project which is choosing and refining a suitable research topic. Topics discussed include definition of research, importance of determining the purpose of research, and the three-perspective method of writing and analysis.

The traditional image of the 'doctor' is someone in a clinic or hospital directly treating patients. However, today there are opportunities for medical professionals in diverse fields of medicine and healthcare. Doctors are now playing a much wider role in enhancing healthcare, diagnosis, research, developing new treatments, and shaping the foundation and functioning of a country's healthcare system. They are also making significant contributions to public health and wellness. This editorial discusses significant alternative medical fields where doctors are building lucrative careers, contributing to society, and playing an equally important role as those in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Writing multiple choice questions (MCQs) for the purpose of medical exams is challenging. It requires extensive medical knowledge, time and effort from medical educators. This systematic review focuses on the application of large language models (LLMs) in generating medical MCQs. Methods: The authors searched for studies published up to November 2023. Search terms focused on LLMs generated MCQs for medical examinations. Non-English, out of year range and studies not focusing on AI generated multiple-choice questions were excluded. MEDLINE was used as a search database. Risk of bias was evaluated using a tailored QUADAS-2 tool. Results: Overall, eight studies published between April 2023 and October 2023 were included. Six studies used Chat-GPT 3.5, while two employed GPT 4. Five studies showed that LLMs can produce competent questions valid for medical exams. Three studies used LLMs to write medical questions but did not evaluate the validity of the questions. One study conducted a comparative analysis of different models. One other study compared LLM-generated questions with those written by humans. All studies presented faulty questions that were deemed inappropriate for medical exams. Some questions required additional modifications in order to qualify. Conclusions: LLMs can be used to write MCQs for medical examinations. However, their limitations cannot be ignored. Further study in this field is essential and more conclusive evidence is needed. Until then, LLMs may serve as a supplementary tool for writing medical examinations. 2 studies were at high risk of bias. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the prevalence of 'spin' (i.e., reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results by positively reflecting negative findings or downplaying potential harms) strategies and level of spin in urological observational studies and whether the use of spin has changed over time. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions in the top five urology journals and major urological subspecialty journals, published between 2000 and 2001, 2010 and 2011, and 2020 and 2021. Results: A total of 235 studies were included. Spin was identified in 81% of studies, with a median of two strategies per study. The most commonly used strategies were inadequate implication for clinical practice (30%), causal language or causal claim (29%), and use of linguistic spin (29%). Moderate to high levels of spin were found in 55% of conclusions. From 2000 to 2020, the average number of strategies used has significantly decreased each decade (H = 27.459, P < 0.001), and the median level of spin in conclusions was significantly lower in studies published in the 2020s and 2010s than in the 2000s (H = 11.649, P = 0.003). Conclusions: Our results suggest that 81% of urological observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions contained spin. Over the past two decades, the use of spin has significantly declined, but this remains an area for improvement, with 70% of included studies published in the 2020s employing spin. Medical writing should scrupulously avoid words or phrases that are not supported by data in the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scientific writing and critical appraisal of the literature are fundamental skills for future physicians. However, these skills have been inconsistently prioritised across medical curricula, leaving medical trainees to seek these skills through continuing education courses. Approach: We conducted a series of complementary collaborative writing sessions (introductory workshop with 3‐month practical sessions) with direct supervision to medical trainees (medical students and recent medical graduates) in the Dominican Republic between 2017 and 2020. We also examined medical trainees' perceptions of these collaborative writing sessions, as a mechanism to advance technical writing and critical analysis skills for their professional training and personal growth. Evaluation: Participants described the perceived enabling factors of the collaborative writing sessions that led to their publications as: (1) detailed agenda; (2) direct mentorship; (3) effective teamwork; (4) personal investment and dedication; and (5) future vision. Implications: These collaborative writing sessions, consisting of a viable agenda and timeline, direct mentorship with timely feedback, and team dynamics, are recognised as an innovative model for medical trainees in the Dominican Republic. This academic model and approach can be adapted to meet the specific needs of health professional students across the globe. By mastering these fundamental written communication skills, medical trainees can contribute to research and policy development, lead health education initiatives, advocate for best clinical practices in patient care, and mentor the next generation of trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving consistency in terminology and speaking with one voice in clinical documents is challenging for several reasons. Cross-functional team members, including medical writers, may use different terminology to describe the disease, condition, and study features, as well as to compare and interpret clinical data. Inconsistent use of terminology in clinical documents can negatively impact the overall quality, efficiency of development, and clarity of messaging and may lead to longer regulatory reviews, extensive questions from regulators, delays in approval, and the possible rejection of a regulatory submission. The development and use of a program lexicon can alleviate some of these challenges. The lexicon is created by the lead medical writer with input from all involved functional areas. The purpose of the lexicon is to provide detailed program-specific guidance for appropriate terminology to create accurate and consistent content within and across documents for use by all contributing authors and reviewers from document initiation to finalization. For regulatory medical writers, a lexicon is an integral part of the focused authoring approach in using consistent comparison language. The lexicon identifies the terminology that should be used, should not be used, if any exceptions are allowed, and examples. Medical writers often drive the development, implementation, and periodic updates of the lexicon to maintain it as a living document. Once developed and used, the lexicon can facilitate faster authoring, review, and quality control of regulatory documents, and meeting tight timelines for regulatory responses or submissions. By standardizing terms and definitions, the lexicon also facilitates automation, structured authoring, and content reuse. Finally, the lexicon can be included as a source file for artificial intelligence tools to produce first drafts of documents that meet regulatory requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study question is the most fundamental part of a research manuscript. This question engages readers by piquing their curiosity and guiding them into the next part of the story. Yet, many medical writers will craft a study question that fails to accomplish one or both of these tasks, which weakens the story. To craft a persuasive study question, medical writers can use a helpful formula that ensures they accomplish both tasks. This formula will also help medical writers overcome five common pitfalls that weaken the question and the research story. These pitfalls include focusing on the objectives of the study, only stating what was done in the study, reversing the order of the formula in the study question, focusing on the hypothesis of the study, and summarizing the key findings of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical writers who work in continuing medical education (CME) and continuing education (CE) are tasked with crafting resources for clinicians to stay up to date with the most recent advances in medicine. These CME/CE activities are designed to improve knowledge, competence, performance, and/or patient outcomes. For CME/CE to achieve these desired outcomes, medical writers can follow principles of instructional design during CME/CE development. At different stages of CME/CE development, medical writers can incorporate various conceptual frameworks and models. Commonly used frameworks to develop CME/CE activities include the plan-do-study-act cycle, Bloom's taxonomy, and Moore's levels. Medical writers can use these frameworks and models to help create learning experiences that are engaging and learner-centered, resulting in changed clinical behavior and improved patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A high-performing medical writing team begins and ends with talented writers, editors, and leaders who understand their mission and their business. A panel of writers comprising the authors convened virtually on October 28, 2021, at the American Medical Writers Association national conference to discuss this topic. The topics of value proposition and business models; communication, leadership, and corporate responsibility; and financial acumen are reprised in this 3-part series. The series also includes thoughts from the authors looking to the future of the business of medical writing, including what we can do in the medical writing community to introduce these topics earlier in the medical writing career path. This Part 3 manuscript focuses on financial acumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The capability of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly increasing and is now sitting on the threshold of the medical writing field. This article presents an AI integration framework that breaks down adoption of this new technology into manageable steps that ensure an informed and thorough approach. Using this framework, individuals and corporations can leverage the benefits of this evolving technology while minimizing risks. The first step, AI literacy, provides a foundation for informed decision making and appropriate expectations for AI capabilities. This knowledge inspires creative exploration of which use cases would be a suitable application of AI tools. Once the scope of potential uses is defined, risks can be assessed, including incorrect content generation, data leakage, and bias. AI tools can then be evaluated to find tools that can both satisfy the use cases and mitigate critical threats. The final step is to integrate the tools transparently with appropriate guardrails. Then the cycle begins again as AI technology evolves and new applications become possible. As medical writers are ushered further into the AI era, clear and consistent advocacy for a synergy point between the efficiency of AI and the experience, ability, and humanity of a medical writer will maximize the impact of these innovative models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trial protocol development forms part of the critical path for launching a trial, which means timelines are tight and progress must be fast and sustained throughout the protocol's development. In order to be successful, medical writers require welldeveloped soft skills to meet the needs of the trial team and to produce a high-quality protocol. We focus on five critical soft skills that are essential for medical writers working with international teams: critical thinking, leadership, communication, teamwork, and adaptability. Based on our experience as a global team of protocol subject matter experts from Asia-Pacific, Europe, India, South Africa, and the US, we also discuss soft skills that are important for working with team members across different regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authoring and reviewing complex, parallel regulatory submission documents under extremely condensed timelines demands significant effort from the medical writing team. However, a skilled project facilitator can alleviate some of this burden by offering support and assistance across the entire spectrum of regulatory submission writing activities. This symbiotic partnership not only reduces the overall workload for the medical writing team but also enables them to focus on their core writing tasks, ultimately enhancing the quality of their work and reducing stress. Additionally, it provides an avenue for the project facilitator to establish standard ways of working and best practices, which can further enhance efficiency and consistency across multiple submissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the way we work, with many companies opting for fully remote or hybrid roles on a permanent basis. While remote working has many advantages, there are some soft skills that may deteriorate when working from home long-term. This article focuses on which soft skills are essential for medical writers and offers advice on how these soft skills can be improved. Four professionals from the medical writing industry contributed their insights on this topic: a freelance medical copywriter, a principal medical writer, and two mentors for medical writers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human-centred "soft" skills are becoming increasingly essential, especially in the current digital workspace. As medical writers navigate the intricate landscape of compliance and precision, they must fortify their soft skills with a foundation of emotional intelligence. In this article, we discuss the interplay of communication, conflict manage ment, and critical thinking (the "3 C's") as the cornerstone to achieving success in medical writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the U.S., diagnostic errors are common across various healthcare settings due to factors like complex procedures and multiple healthcare providers, often exacerbated by inadequate initial evaluations. This study explores the role of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically OpenAI's ChatGPT-4 and Google Gemini, in improving emergency decision-making in plastic and reconstructive surgery by evaluating their effectiveness both with and without physical examination data. Thirty medical vignettes covering emergency conditions such as fractures and nerve injuries were used to assess the diagnostic and management responses of the models. These responses were evaluated by medical professionals against established clinical guidelines, using statistical analyses including the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results showed that ChatGPT-4 consistently outperformed Gemini in both diagnosis and management, irrespective of the presence of physical examination data, though no significant differences were noted within each model's performance across different data scenarios. Conclusively, while ChatGPT-4 demonstrates superior accuracy and management capabilities, the addition of physical examination data, though enhancing response detail, did not significantly surpass traditional medical resources. This underscores the utility of AI in supporting clinical decision-making, particularly in scenarios with limited data, suggesting its role as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, comprehensive clinical evaluation and expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a plain language summary of a study on awareness, attitudes, and practices regarding meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccination in the United States among parents of older adolescents and young adults. The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and conducted by IQVIA. The authors of the study declare their financial and other relationships, and the article acknowledges the contributions of various individuals and organizations. The data from the study were also presented in two posters at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting. [Extracted from the article]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective communication in medical writing is essential for conveying accurate and understandable information to healthcare professionals and patients. English language errors in medical literature can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and potentially harmful consequences. This systematic literature review aims to identify, analyze, and categorize common English language errors encountered in medical writing. This study identifies gaps in existing literature on language errors in medical writing and reveals areas that need further investigation or where more comprehensive guidelines are required. This study addresses six questions: (1) What types of language errors are discussed in the current literature? (2) What types of medical writing are involved in the current literature? (3) Which countries or areas are involved in the current literature? (4) What are the research methods used in the studies? (5) What tools are used in the studies? (6) What are the limitations of these studies? To answer these questions, this review searched nine databases and one platform, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Fulltext, ProQuest Ebook Central (e-Books), Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library (e-Journals & e-Books) (PPV), Science Direct, Cambridge Core e-Books, Oxford Press Scholarship Online (e-Books), Google Scholar, and Carian Bestari@UKM / Discovery Service@UKM. Finally, ten studies were selected, including articles and books. The findings provide insights into types of language errors, types of medical writing, countries or areas of medical writing, research methods, tools, and limitations of these ten studies, highlighting the importance of linguistic accuracy and proficiency in medical writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing has raised concerns regarding accuracy, ethics, and scientific rigour. Some AI content detectors may not accurately identify AI-generated texts, especially those that have undergone paraphrasing. Therefore, there is a pressing need for efficacious approaches or guidelines to govern AI usage in specific disciplines. Objective: Our study aims to compare the accuracy of mainstream AI content detectors and human reviewers in detecting AI-generated rehabilitation-related articles with or without paraphrasing. Study design: This cross-sectional study purposively chose 50 rehabilitation-related articles from four peer-reviewed journals, and then fabricated another 50 articles using ChatGPT. Specifically, ChatGPT was used to generate the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections based on the original titles, methods, and results. Wordtune was then used to rephrase the ChatGPT-generated articles. Six common AI content detectors (Originality.ai, Turnitin, ZeroGPT, GPTZero, Content at Scale, and GPT-2 Output Detector) were employed to identify AI content for the original, ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased articles. Four human reviewers (two student reviewers and two professorial reviewers) were recruited to differentiate between the original articles and AI-rephrased articles, which were expected to be more difficult to detect. They were instructed to give reasons for their judgements. Results: Originality.ai correctly detected 100% of ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased texts. ZeroGPT accurately detected 96% of ChatGPT-generated and 88% of AI-rephrased articles. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of ZeroGPT were 0.98 for identifying human-written and AI articles. Turnitin showed a 0% misclassification rate for human-written articles, although it only identified 30% of AI-rephrased articles. Professorial reviewers accurately discriminated at least 96% of AI-rephrased articles, but they misclassified 12% of human-written articles as AI-generated. On average, students only identified 76% of AI-rephrased articles. Reviewers identified AI-rephrased articles based on 'incoherent content' (34.36%), followed by 'grammatical errors' (20.26%), and 'insufficient evidence' (16.15%). Conclusions and relevance: This study directly compared the accuracy of advanced AI detectors and human reviewers in detecting AI-generated medical writing after paraphrasing. Our findings demonstrate that specific detectors and experienced reviewers can accurately identify articles generated by Large Language Models, even after paraphrasing. The rationale employed by our reviewers in their assessments can inform future evaluation strategies for monitoring AI usage in medical education or publications. AI content detectors may be incorporated as an additional screening tool in the peer-review process of academic journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the biological, biomarker-driven framework of Alzheimer's disease (AD) becomes formalized through revised, consensus clinical criteria, clinicians will confront more and more patients in the earliest, asymptomatic stages of disease. The language and diction used by practitioners to characterize these early patients, whether they are diagnosed with AD, and how their condition is documented in medical and legal records have important implications for both their care and their medical-legal status outside of the health system. Investigation is needed urgently to better understand clinicians' views and practices regarding early AD, as we adapt to new disease definitions in this unprecedented era of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Op-ed writing can be a powerful and accessible advocacy tool for physicians, but training is lacking in undergraduate medical education. Aim: To train and engage first-year medical students in op-ed writing. Setting: Midwestern research-intensive medical school. Participants: All students in a required first-year health policy course in 2021 and 2022. Program Description: For their health policy course's final assignment, students could opt to write an op-ed on a healthcare issue of their choice. All students received written instruction on op-ed writing. Additionally, they could access a seminar, coaching and editing by peers and faculty, and publication guidance. Program Evaluation: Of 179 students over 2 years, 105 chose to write op-eds. Fifty-one attended the seminar, 35 attended peer coaching sessions, 33 accessed structured peer editing, and 23 received faculty assistance. Thirty-eight students submitted a total of 42 op-eds for publication. Twenty-two pieces were published in major outlets and 17 in the university's health policy review. Of the 22 in major outlets, 21 received editing from either peers or faculty. Discussion: An op-ed writing curriculum can be integrated into an existing medical school health policy course, resulting in a high level of engagement and in published op-eds by medical students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific knowledge has been growing continuously and rapidly in recent years. Scientific writing plays an important role in the process of scientific knowledge. In recent years, there has been an increasing research effort on scientific writing. This research aims to reveal the growth trend of global research on scientific writing, the contributions to the field, the trending topics of the field, the main themes of the field, and the social interaction of the countries contributing to the field. For this purpose, 968 publications covering the period between 1959-2023 obtained from the Web of Science database were analysed by bibliometric analysis. According to the results of the study, scientific writing literature has shown a significant growth trend since 2010. The most productive journals in the field come from science journals such as chemistry and biology. The most productive countries are USA and UK has the highest publication impact. The countries with the highest collaboration are USA and UK respectively. The trending topic of the SW area is on the use of Chat GPT in scientific writing. The SW area is divided into four themes: scientific literacy and communication, scientific writing in medical research, scientific writing in higher education, and ethics of scientific writing. This research provided a comprehensive review of the accumulated knowledge in the field of SW and provided a holistic perspective on the field. Furthermore, some possible directions for future research are shown. This research has shown that in addition to traditional studies that provide scientific writing guidelines, SW will be shaped more by artificial intelligence developments in the coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the role of human involvement in enhancing the performance of large language models (LLMs) in medical inquiry. The authors highlight the occasional shortcomings of LLMs in providing accurate citation information and accessing real-time data. They recommend prompt engineering as a way to enhance model performance, which involves carefully crafting instructions or queries given to LLMs to elicit specific and desired responses. The article also discusses the importance of verifying LLM outputs and acknowledges the limitations of LLMs in medical diagnoses and personalized advice. The authors conclude that the judicious implementation of the "human-in-the-loop" strategy, with a focus on prompt engineering, can greatly improve LLM capabilities in medical inquiry. [Extracted from the article]

Once prescribers have initiated medication regimens, there can be a reluctance to review and discontinue them. Over the past two decades in the UK, the percentage of individuals aged 65 and above on polypharmacy (five or more medications) has risen from 12–49% (Gao et al, 2018). Medication can harm as well as heal, and the need for medication reviews grows as our population ages. This article is one of a series, written by a consultant nurse and a pharmacist, and aims to help readers further develop their skills in medication management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the historical discovery of the uterine tubes, also known as fallopian tubes. While Gabriele Falloppio is commonly credited with this discovery, the article argues that Medieval Persian scientists, such as Sayyed Ismail ibn Hasan, also known as Jorjani, recognized the function of the uterine tubes even earlier. Jorjani's descriptions of the tubes in his medical encyclopedia, as well as other Persian medical texts, demonstrate a clear understanding of their anatomy and function. The article suggests that Falloppio may have been influenced by this Persian knowledge when writing about the female reproductive anatomy. [Extracted from the article]

Drug information specialists (DIS) bring unique, specialized expertise and provide services in diverse settings including health systems, academia, pharmaceutical industry, compendia, medical writing, and other areas. With widespread access to drug information (DI) resources through user‐friendly, online platforms, the role of DIS has shifted. Core skill sets once confined to DIS are now distributed across various non‐DIS clinical specialties. DIS have transformed the application of their specialized skill set and adapted it to a variety of traditional and nontraditional areas, providing and applying advanced expertise to solve a variety of contemporary challenges. The training of students and residents has evolved to include evidence‐based practical contemporary methods that promote critical thinking and reasoning. Effective DI evaluation and communication necessitates customizing content for stakeholders to ensure understanding and contribute to optimal patient care, all while addressing misinformation and disinformation. The future of DI as a specialty is bright, with ever‐increasing recognition of the importance of DI skills in non‐DIS practitioners. DIS will likely continue to guide best practices in the education/training of new practitioners and continue to provide advanced services and formulary analytics. This update to our 2009 DI PRN Opinion paper will focus on: (1) DI education and training needed for all students, residents, and pharmacists; (2) career opportunities, roles, and responsibilities specifically tailored for DIS in health systems, managed care organizations, academia, pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry, and medical writing services; and (3) the future direction of DI, including the potential impact of artificial intelligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Acute ChatGPT, an artificial inteeligence-powered chatbot, presents a potential influence on healthcare and research in medicine. In this investigation, we systematically reviewed medical literature regarding the utilization of ChatGPT, utilizing the Scopus database. Methods: This systematic review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, and according to the search in Scopus, 11,219 articles were identified. Original studies, clinical trials, correspondence articles, letters, notes, and research protocols were included, resulting in 14 studies. Results: All studies were published in 2023, among them 35.7% (5/14) were editorials and 14.3% (2/14) were opinion or perspective articles. Only one study (19) conducted a pilot study on the application of ChatGPT in medical diagnosis. Furthermore, 64.3% of the studies were published in quartile 1 journals according to Scimago rankings, and the USA had the highest production of articles on ChatGPT in medicine (35.7%). The included studies highlighted the potential and challenges of ChatGPT in various domains of healthcare. Ethical concerns, such as data privacy and bias, were also analyzed. Various fields of health were evaluated with ChatGPT, including nuclear medicine, gynecology, nuclear medicine, and emergency medicine. ChatGPT was considered a tool to improve patient education. ChatGPT has a promising role in scientific writing, emphasizing the need for human involvement, ethical guidelines, and addressing concerns related to bias, fabrication, and plagiarism. Conclusions: Scopus-retrieved articles underscored the potential advantages and ethical dilemmas associated with the integration of ChatGPT in healthcare. While ChatGPT demonstrated promising applications in various medical domains, caution, further evaluation, and ethical considerations are needed for responsible implementation in real-world clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines for company-sponsored biomedical research were updated in 2022 and have generated correspondence and commentary. The guidelines were developed by the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and cover various topics such as publication types, ethical principles, authorship, and publication process. The updated guidelines reflect the need for responsible publication planning and management in all stages of clinical development and all types of biomedical research. The guidelines are relevant to academia, medical communications agencies, publishers, and editors, and aim to promote ethics, transparency, and best practices in biomedical research publications. Future iterations of the guidelines may address topics such as artificial intelligence and the role of patients. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The writing of Integrated Patient Progress Notes (IPPNs) by pharmacists generally does not fulfil the correct writing standards. Objective: This study aimed to analyze the effect of education on the level of knowledge and writing profile of IPPN. Methods: A prospective analytic method research design was used with data collection techniques through questionnaires and total sampling for IPPN data. The researcher developed a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure pharmacists' level of knowledge. Education was conducted through "Focus Group Discussion" with PowerPoint slides of SOAP method writing material and SOAP framework leaflets. Quantitative analysis of IPPN data was performed using the Wilcoxon test on SPSS. Results: The results showed that the highest percentage of pharmacists' knowledge level before education was A.M Hospital (87%) and after education was B Hospital (95%). The profile of IPPN writing by pharmacists before being given education showed the highest percentage of IPPN writing suitability was at A.M Hospital (21.6%), and the completeness of IPPN writing was at M.H Hospital (99%). After education, the highest percentage of IPPNs writing suitability was in B Hospital (64.3%), and the completeness of IPPNs writing was in M.H Hospital (97.9%). Education has an effect on pharmacists' knowledge level (p-value 0.029) and the appropriateness profile of IPPN writing (p-value 0.013). However, education did not affect the completeness of writing Integrated Patient Progress Notes (IPPNs) (p-value 0.285). Conclusion: Education succeeded in improving pharmacists' knowledge of writing CPPT correctly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sentiment analysis has garnered significant attention in the academic field lately, which gives academic scholars a full comprehension of how emotion states are communicated in texts and how it works as a powerful persuasion strategy for academic writers. Based on a large dataset of over five million tokens, this study examined specific emotions in research articles across 18 subdisciplines of medicine, aiming to reveal the emotions presented by medical writers in academic writing. The results showed the following: (1) four emotions with positive valence—trust, anticipation, joy, and surprise—were observed; (2) the tendency of emotion represented by trust > anticipation > joy > surprise was identified, with the first (trust) being overwhelmingly dominant and the rest indicating minor presence; and (3) subdisciplinary emotion variation was found and the contributing variables were identified as research methods and paradigms, research objects, interdisciplinary features, and disciplinary status in knowledge accumulation. The findings contribute to our understanding of emotion strategy applied in academic writing and genre characteristics of medical science. This article concludes with pedagogical implications for EAP teachers and suggestions for possible future research. • Medical writers express four positive emotions of trust, anticipation, joy, and surprise in RAs. • Medical writers' emotions in RAs are characterized by the hierarchy of trust > anticipation > joy > surprise. • Medical writers' emotions in RAs vary across subdisciplines. • Emotion analysis contributes to academic discourse studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles. Methods: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles. Results: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9 ± 1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes. Conclusion: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scientific research activities are crucial for the development of clinician-scientists. However, few people pay attention to the current situation of medical research in pediatric medical students in China. This study aims to assess the perceptions, practices and barriers toward medical research of pediatric undergraduates. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among third-year, fourth-year and fifth-year pediatric students from Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China via an anonymous online questionnaire. The questionnaires were also received from fifth-year students majoring in other medicine programs [clinical medicine ("5 + 3") and clinical medicine (5-year)]. Results: The response rate of pediatric undergraduates was 88.3% (68/77). The total sample of students enrolled in the study was 124, including 36 students majoring in clinical medicine ("5 + 3") and 20 students majoring in clinical medicine (5-year). Most students from pediatrics ("5 + 3") recognized that research was important. Practices in scientific research activities are not satisfactory. A total of 51.5%, 35.3% and 36.8% of the pediatric students participated in research training, research projects and scientific article writing, respectively. Only 4.4% of the pediatric students contributed to publishing a scientific article, and 14.7% had attended medical congresses. None of them had given a presentation at a congress. When compared with fifth-year students in the other medicine program, the frequency of practices toward research projects and training was lower in the pediatric fifth-year students. Lack of time, lack of guidance and lack of training were perceived as the main barriers to scientific work. Limited English was another obvious barrier for pediatric undergraduates. Pediatric undergraduates preferred to participate in clinical research (80.9%) rather than basic research. Conclusions: Although pediatric undergraduates recognized the importance of medical research, interest and practices in research still require improvement. Lack of time, lack of guidance, lack of training and limited English were the common barriers to scientific work. Therefore, research training and English improvement were recommended for pediatric undergraduates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]