Reporting of study design in titles and abstracts of articles published in clinically oriented dermatology journals

British Journal of Dermatology

Volumn 156, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 557-559

  Ubriani, R ^b   Smith, N ^c   Katz, K A ^a,b  

^a School of Medicine ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c CHRISTIANA HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Critical appraisal; Epidemiology; Evidence based medicine; Medical literature; Study design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DERMATOLOGY; GOLD STANDARD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING; BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DERMATOLOGY; HUMANS; PERIODICALS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; TERMINOLOGY;

EID: 33846959770     PISSN: 00070963     EISSN: 13652133     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07705.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Abeni D, Girardelli CR, Masini C et al. What proportion of dermatological patients receive evidence-based treatment? Arch Dermatol 2001; 137:771-6.
2. Barzilai DA, Freiman A, Dellavalle RP et al. Dermatoepidemiology. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 52:559-73.
3. Bigby M. Evidence-based medicine in a nutshell. A guide to finding and using the best evidence in caring for patients. Arch Dermatol 1998; 134:1609-18.
4. Bigby M, Williams H. Appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:795-8.
5. Dellavalle RP, Stegner DL, Deas AM et al. Assessing evidence-based dermatology and evidence-based internal medicine curricula in US residency training programs: a national survey. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:369-72.
6. Straus SE, Sackett DL. Bringing evidence to the clinic. Arch Dermatol 1998; 134:1519-20.
7. Williams HC. Applying trial evidence back to the patient. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:1195-200.
8. Williams HC, Strachan DP. The Challenge of Dermato-epidemiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997.
9. Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds). American Medical Association. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: a Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Chicago, IL: AMA Press, 2002.
10. Sackett DL. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
11. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312:71-2.
12. Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaeschke RZ et al. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users' Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000; 284:1290-6.
13. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ 1997; 315:243-6.
14. Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Mayrent SL. Epidemiology in Medicine, 1st edn. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1987.
15. Winker MA. The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA 1999; 281:1129-30.
16. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106:598-604.
17. Archives of Dermatology (homepage on the Internet). Chicago, IL: AMA, c2006. Instructions for Authors (about 20 screens). Available from: http://archderm.ama-assn.org/misc/ifora.dtl (last accessed 22 February 2006).
18. Dupuy A, Khosrotehrani K, Lebbe C et al. Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139:589-93.
19. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999; 281:1110-11.
20. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Effectiveness of a journal intervention to improve abstract quality. JAMA 2000; 283:481.