阳光肺科

 找回密码
 立即注册

微信扫码登录

搜索

[文章类型] 评论(Comment)

   火.. [复制链接]
JEBM 发表于 2023-12-25 19:45:36 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

马上注册,阅读更多内容,享用更多功能!

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?立即注册

×
文章类型:
评论(Comment)

说明:
对于专业领域相关研究,包括基础、转化和临床研究乃至医疗政策的评论,争议,包括循证评价。
从临床、科学、社会、政治和经济等不同角度来评论国际上发表的对专业领域有影响的文章。

稿件来源:
  • 本刊主编或者执行主编邀稿,约请该领域内知名专家撰写。
  • 作者投稿

写作要求:
  • 字数:1000-2000字,不包括标题,摘要和参考文献;
  • 鼓励提供至少一张原创表格或者图片。如果引用其他期刊图片,必须获得版权方授权。
  • 参考文献:不超过10篇。
  • 标题:研究组织/CTONG-1103,IPASS……,尽量使用研究的编号或缩写还有为题目的一部分,让学者易于检索到需要的文件,易于被识别。

建议供写作参考的文献
仁心仁术 发表于 2024-2-11 13:37:50 | 显示全部楼层

如何点评《新英格兰医学杂志》论文

下面我们看一下Lancet于2013年5月发表的一篇述评(Hepatitis C in the USA and Europe: two problems, one solution. Lancet 2013;381:1688),其题目可译为《美国和欧洲的丙型肝炎:两个难题,一种解决》,是针对Lancet发表的关于sofosbuvir治疗丙型肝炎的2期临床试验而写的(Kowdley KV, et al. Sofosbuvir with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin for treatment-naive patients with hepatitis C genotype-1 infection (ATOMIC): an open-label, randomised, multicenter phase 2 trial. Lancet 2013;381:2100–07)。上述述评文章分为以下4段。

1)美国和欧洲丙型肝炎的诊断和治疗都有较大的问题:在美国,丙肝病毒(HCV)检测阳性的人群几乎一半不再去复查,如果不接受治疗,许多病例将发生严重肝病甚至死亡。美国约有3百万人患丙型肝炎,但只有1/4知道自已存在丙肝病毒感染。在欧洲,约有9百万人有丙肝病毒感染,但只有一半的人被诊断有该病。

2)美国CDC的研究还发现,美国8个地点的资料表明,大多数HCV感染的人在1945―1965年间出生,这个时期被称为生育高峰期。CDC建议,所有在那个时期出生的人都应接受常规HCV检测。

3)在欧洲,人群有异质性。生育高峰期也许起作用,但其他因素,如注射吸毒、透析病人、性工作者、囚犯和来自丙肝地方性流行区(南部非洲、中东)的人,可能都处于丙肝高危。法国和德国已经有HCV筛查方案,但全欧洲都需要筛查。

4)有希望的新药已经在研发生产之中。像sofosbuvir这样的药,与α干扰素和利巴韦林合用,能使90%的患者取得持续的病毒学反应。只有全世界的政府都共同努力实施相关政策,并且为有效的筛查、随访和治疗提供资金,才能使丙型肝炎得到切实控制。

该述评文章字数340,十分简短,但也颇有指导意义。在我的印象中,Lancet的述评比其他期刊的似乎更简短(400字左右)。虽然作者都是该刊的编辑人员,但其突出的特点是更加简短,与其他期刊的较长述评形成了鲜明的对照。许多医学专家是期刊论著文章、文献综述和述评等文章的潜在作者。当他们通过大量的阅读,熟悉和掌握了国际医学期刊的各类文章,包括述评文章的内容和写法之后,撰写出优秀的不同类型文章的可能性就会增加。

撰写述评文章的基本要求和注意事项
1 述评文章的基本内容
根据以上对述评内容的分析,可以说,针对同期发表的论著文章所写述评的内容,应当至少包括以下几点:

1)所述具体研究领域的概况(如研究的疾病是什么,其主要特征,以及背景等)

2)研究的目的和内容,干预的措施,主要的结果,及其应用价值(如果有)。对治疗类研究论文而言,不但要讨论疗效,而且还要讨论安全性相关的问题。

3)存在的问题,及原因的分析或说明,对于临床研究而言,不良事件、副作用等,及其产生的原因,以及可能的解决办法。

4)展望,未来的发展或研究方向等。

以上这几点,是最基本的应当考虑的内容。作者可以根据具体情况,进行扩展。

2 述评文章写作的要求
一般而言篇幅不应太长,《新英格兰医学杂志》要求字数大约750词,以文字叙述为主,图或表,只能有一个,参考文献限10篇。其他期刊,如Lancet,JAMA,J Clin Oncol和Circulation等,也大致如此。

述评文章中,要将“述”和“评”有机地结合起来,应当既有简要的描述和介绍,也有必要的评价,包括研究取得的成绩和存在的不足或差距,以及今后的研究应当改进或提高的方面。

文字描述中应特别注意的是,避免对别人或前人的研究工作或发表的文章等使用贬低的言词或语句或过激的言词。

述评文章的题目与其他类型的文章,如论著、文献综述及其他类型文章题目相比,其题目一般要简短、清楚,可以设法使其活跃、引人。可参考下面的一些例子。

1)问句式的题目相对多见。如:Neonatal hypoglycemia studies―is there a sweet story of success yet?(新生儿低血糖的研究――有了成功的甜美故事吗?Simmons R and Stanley CN. Engl J Med 2015;373:1567-9)。该题目用的是问句, 引人注目;同时用了“sweet story”(甜美的故事),显得活跃。以下两个题目也都是问句:Remote ischemic preconditioning in cardiac surgery―ineffective and risky?(心脏手术中的远处缺血预适应――无效而且有危险?Zaugg M and Lucchinetti E. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1470-2)和Treating myeloproliferation―on target or off?(治疗骨髓增殖――靶上治疗还是靶外治疗?Armanios M and Greider CW. N Engl J Med 2015;373:965-6)。

2)用谐音或相似词 Support for SUPPORT(支持SUPPORT试验。Drazen JM, Solomon CG, Morrissey S, Greene MF. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1469-70)。这样的题目让人看起来颇有吸引力,简短而有趣,会引起读者的阅读兴趣。这个题目中大写的SUPPORT, 是一项临床研究的缩写名,其全称是Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial(表面活性物质、正压[呼吸]和氧合随机临床试验)。这是2004-2009年间在美国进行的一项临床试验。这篇述评为什么提出支持“SUPPORT”研究呢?这是因为有人起诉了批准该临床研究的阿拉巴马大学机构审查委员会、该研究的课题负责人以及脉搏氧饱和度监测计生产厂家。原告认为有几名早产儿因为参加了该临床试验而遭受了严重的损伤。但法官未经审讯就驳回了原告的诉讼案,理由是原告并没有出示合理的证据说明新生儿所遭受的持续损伤是因为参加了该临床研究。该述评文章旗帜鲜明地支持SUPPORT研究,有很好的指导意义。

让我们再看下一个例子:Ditching the itch with anti-type 2 cytokine therapies for atopic dermatitis(使用抗2型细胞因子疗法为特应性皮炎的瘙痒去痒,Schneider LC. N Engl J Med 2017;376:878-9)。原文题目用ditching the itch …, 是有意识地用这两个词的谐音,使这个题目显得活跃、引人。那么我们翻译或理解这个原文题目时,也可以体现出这种近乎文字游戏的作法,“瘙痒的去痒”也算是一定程度的体现吧。


杨学宁医师 发表于 2024-5-19 15:32:58 | 显示全部楼层
综述和评论很难鉴别?如何区分?

lancet

Most Comments are commissioned by journal editors, but spontaneous Comments are considered on topics relevant to a general medical audience, including events within the past month, or in the near future. Please refer to the instructions for authors and submit any unsolicited Comments using our manuscript submission system. These expert opinion pieces are not normally externally peer reviewed.


  
类型
  
说明
要求
Health Policy
Unsolicited narrative reviews, sometimes with a descriptive study, of a particular topic relevant to policy makers. These policy pieces are always externally peer reviewed.

Hypotheses
A new and scientifically plausible idea for an important clinical question to stimulate research. These papers are always externally peer reviewed.

Viewpoint
Shorter reviews that contain slightly more opinion-based information. These opinion pieces are usually externally peer reviewed.

Personal View
These are opinion pieces that reflect an individual perception, involvement, or contribution to the field, and should be prepared in a similar way to a Review. Unsolicited contributions are welcome, although please contact the Editor before submission to ensure that the proposed topic is within the remit of the journal. Personal views are always externally peer reviewed.

TimeCapsule
These  overviews commemorate landmark occasions or milestone events. These historical perspectives are always externally peer reviewed.



类型  
说明
要求
-Viewpoint
full info

-May address virtually any important topic in medicine, public health, research, discovery, prevention, ethics, health policy, or health law and generally are not linked to a specific article.
-
  • 1200 words (or 1000 words with 1 small table or figure)
  • ≤7 references at submission
  • ≤3 authors, with no more than 2 affiliations per author
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

OpinionViewpoint
Viewpoints may address virtually any important topic in medicine, public health, research, discovery, prevention, ethics, health policy, or health law and generally are not linked to a specific article. Viewpoints should be well focused, scholarly, and clearly presented but should not include the findings of new research or data that have not been previously published.
Viewpoints must have no more than 3 authors. Editors encourage diversity of gender, race, ethnicity, geographic location, and discipline for Viewpoint authors, and the first author should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic to provide an authoritative opinion. The text should include the full name, academic degrees, and no more than 2 institutional affiliations for each author. Maximum length: up to 1200 words of text—or 1000 words of text with 1 small table or figure—and no more than 7 references, which should be as current as possible. Viewpoints not meeting these guidelines will not be considered.





Content Types | Nature Medicine

  • Perspective
    Perspective is a format for scholarly reviews and discussions of the primary research literature in which the authors may express a particular point of view on the topic being covered.
    Format

    • Length – up to 4,000 words.
    • References – up to 100.
    • Illustrations are strongly encouraged.
    • Perspectives include received/accepted dates.
    • Perspectives are peer reviewed.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    Comment
    Comments are discussions of important aspects of science and medicine, usually interfacing with policy or society, that are generally limited to a particular point. The main criteria are that they should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style. A good Comment will have a clear bottom line, captured in the title and in a stand first, and will cover a topic of broad interest to Nature Medicine readers, or that is particularly timely. Comments do not normally contain primary research data, although they may present 'sociological' data (funding trends, demographics, bibliographic data, etc.).  
    Format
    • Main text – 1,500-2,000 words.
    • The use of schematic figures is encouraged.
    • References should be used sparingly – up to 15.
    • Article titles are omitted from the reference list.
    • Peer review is at the editors' discretion.
    ___________________________________________________

Matters Arising
Matters Arising are exceptionally interesting and timely scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers published inNature Medicine. These comments should ideally be based on contemporary knowledge rather than subsequent scientific developments.
For detailed information on how to submit a Matters Arising, please follow instructions here.


Commissioned content | Nature Communications

Comment
Comment articles can focus on policy, science and society or purely scientific issues. Articles by single authors or small groups of authors are preferred as this is an 'opinion' section of the journal. Comments are usually commissioned by the editors and we are able to pursue only a small fraction of the unsolicited submissions we receive. They should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style.
Comments begin with a title of up to 15 words and an abstract of less than 40 words written for a general audience. Comments are typically no longer than 1,500 words and, as a guide, include up to 15 references. Figures and diagrams are encouraged, but are not a requirement. If including display items, please limit the number of items to 2. Figure legends are limited to 350 words.
Authors must provide competing interests and author contributions statements before publication. Comments are not typically peer reviewed.




杨学宁医师 发表于 2024-5-19 16:46:55 | 显示全部楼层
评论稿件要求:
  • 尽可能简约的文字和图表写作;
  • 1000字至2000字,建议附加一个表格或者一至两张图片。(表格的制作要求和建议图片的制作来源、要求和建议)
  • 文章中阐明作者对主题/项目/研究/临床试验观点:
    ▪ 结果或者成果的认识;
    ▪ 缺陷和不足的分析;
    ▪ 如何在临床中应用的思考和建议;
    ▪ 进一步深入或者拓展研究的思考和建议。
    以上论点/项目可以根据作者的习惯和思路组织。
  • 如果《循证医学》杂志在同期、往期已有相关文章涉及所要评论的研究/临床试验,请注意避免不必要的重复。如果是同期发表的稿件,建议各位作者和编辑一起联系协调。
杨学宁医师 发表于 2024-5-19 16:47:05 | 显示全部楼层
我们来写这篇评论,不是为了再表扬一遍这个研究, 而是为了说明在临床应用中有哪些值得注意的,哪些情况证据充分,该用!哪些情况还不够充分,但看到了亮点,值得进一步探索,或者关注……。
 楼主| JEBM 发表于 2024-5-22 23:55:04 | 显示全部楼层
评论 (Commentaries)
此栏目文章仅由编辑部约稿。论著性文章请勿投往本栏目。正文:不超过 1000 个单词
结构性摘要:无硬性要求图表:不超过 2 幅
参考文献:不超过 10 篇
杨学宁医师 发表于 2024-7-3 11:38:10 | 显示全部楼层



说明:



关键:
主要说明两个问题
  • 关于该问题的研究现状?
  • 该研究增加或加强了哪些证据?

附加说明:
  • 避免简单地提出 “需要新的研究”
  • 应尽可能提出 “为明确地回答这个问题需要进行什么研究?”
  • 缺少的证据与未提供的证据
  • 专家有关方法学方面的意见
  • 提倡一个原创的图片或者表格,不能未经允许使用其他期刊或者非自己版权或者自由版权的图片。

写作要求:




类型  
说明
要求
Comment
Most Comments are commissioned by journal editors, but spontaneous Comments are considered on topics relevant to a general medical audience, including events within the past month, or in the near future. Please refer to the instructions for authors and submit any unsolicited Comments using our manuscript submission system. These expert opinion pieces are not normally externally peer reviewed.

  • 建议 500-1000字,不超过2000字;
  • 建议提供一个表格或者图,但必须是原创,或者获得原作者同意的资料。
Perspectives视角:
(also titled Reflections, In Focus, Insights, Culture, Media Watch, In Context, or Spotlight)
视角:医学的深度视角和展望
调整为述评或者评论,取决于写作的质量和评论的相应研究。
Various pieces that look at health and medicine within society, including book, film, play, and exhibit reviews, as well as pieces written by individuals with lived experience. These pieces are commissioned by journal editors. These opinion pieces are not externally peer reviewed.

Perspective
A Perspective is intended to provide a forum for authors to discuss models and ideas from a personal viewpoint. They are more forward looking and/or speculative than Review articles and may take a narrower field of view. They may be opinionated but should remain balanced and are intended to stimulate discussion and new experimental approaches.
Perspectives follow the same formatting guidelines and policies as Reviews, and also require a synopsis. As with Reviews, Perspectives are in most cases invited by the editor and we are able to pursue only a small fraction of the unsolicited submissions we receive. Perspectives are peer-reviewed and include received/accepted dates. Authors must provide competing interests and author contributions statements before publication.


  • 建议 500-1000字,不超过2000字;
  • 建议提供一个表格或者图,但必须是原创,或者获得原作者同意的资料。
-
是该专业领域内导向性较强的文章,一般由编辑部约请该领域内知名专家撰写。应对某一领域的研究现状和未来发展方向进行归纳和评价,其观点应反映学术界主流趋势。撰写时可对某一领域内一个具体问题,结合已有的研究结果,介绍作者的经验,表明作者的观点,并有相应的证据支持。
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Comments are discussions of important aspects of science and medicine, usually interfacing with policy or society, that are generally limited to a particular point. The main criteria are that they should be of immediate interest to a broad readership and should be written in an accessible, non-technical style. A good Comment will have a clear bottom line, captured in the title and in a stand first, and will cover a topic of broad interest to Nature Medicine readers, or that is particularly timely. Comments do not normally contain primary research data, although they may present 'sociological' data (funding trends, demographics, bibliographic data, etc.).  
Format
  • Main text – 1,500-2,000 words.
  • The use of schematic figures is encouraged.
  • References should be used sparingly – up to 15.
  • Article titles are omitted from the reference list.
  • Peer review is at the editors' discretion.

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

给我们建议|手机版|阳光肺科 ( 粤ICP备2020077405号-1 )

GMT+8, 2024-11-10 13:44

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

© 2001-2024 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表