综述和评论很难鉴别？如何区分？
| 类型 | | | | A definitive overview of a major topic or an update of knowledge in a narrower field of current interest. These can be disease-orientated, clinically focused overviews or reviews of health systems or health policy. These evidence reviews are always externally peer reviewed. |
| | Disease-oriented clinically focused overviews for the generalist, covering epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and prevention. These clinical overviews are always externally peer reviewed. |
| | Topics for Commissions are selected by our editors, who work with academic partners to identify the most pressing issues in science, medicine, and global health, with the aim of producing recommendations to change public policy or improve practice. Author groups are formed in collaboration between the lead Commissioners (co-chairs) editor and represent a broad range of international expertise. These in-depth reports are usually conducted over 2-3 years and are always externally peer reviewed. |
| | Commissioned by our editors, Series include two or more Reviews that take an in depth look at a topic of special interest to explore new thinking and advance a particular field. These evidence reviews are always externally peer reviewed. |
|
|
|
|
Therapeutics
| Reviews for clinicians on new and up-and-coming therapeutic options for diseases. The primary focus is on new drugs in a specific disease, but broad-based reviews on a drug class or on new nonpharmacological options will be commissioned. These treatment reviews are always externally peer reviewed. | | | 信息图表（Infographics）
| - 原创，具有总结性的图片。
- 相关临床试验或者研究性文章的数据表格或者图表，需要原创，不能侵犯版权 。
- 不同国家的肿瘤流行病学数据统计，对比等，精美图表
| 要求？ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
信息图表（Infographics）
配有图表的综述，非常重要，图表非常重要
类型 | | | -Systematic Review (without meta-analysis)
full info
| Critical assessments of the literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. Systematic Reviews without meta-analysis are published as Reviews; those with meta-analysis are published as Original Investigations (see Meta-analysis). | - 3000 words
- 50-75 references
- ≤5 tables and/or figures
- A PRISMA-style flow diagram should be included as an online supplement
- Include a table with ratings of the quality of the studies/evidence
- Subtitle should be "A Systematic Review"
- Structured abstract
- Key Points
- Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines
-
| Narrative Review
full info-
| Up-to-date review for clinicians on a topic of general common interest from the perspective of internationally recognized experts in these disciplines. The focus should be an update on current understanding of the physiology of the disease or condition, diagnostic consideration, and treatment. These reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice.-
| -- 2000-3500 words
- 50-75 references
- ≤5 tables and/or figures
- 3-part structured abstract
- No Key Points
- Subtitle should be "A Review"
| Special Communication
full info-
| -This journal publishes very few of these types of articles. These manuscripts describe an important issue in clinical medicine, public health, health policy, or medical research in a scholarly, thorough, well-referenced, systematic, and evidence-based manner. | -- 3000 words
- 50 references
- ≤4 tables and/or figures
- Structured abstract
- Requires a presubmission inquiry
| -Clinical Challenge
full info
| -Presents an actual patient case with a specific disease or condition with an accompanying clinical image.
| -- "What Is Your Diagnosis?" with 4 single-phrase plausible diagnosis options with 1 being preferred
- Case presentation: 250 words
- Discussion: 500-600 words
- ≤10 references
- ≤3 authors
- 1-2 small figures
- Patient permission required
| -Diagnostic Test Interpretation
full info
| -This article requires a presubmission inquiry. Presentation of the results of a diagnostic test from a single patient with exploration of the clinical application of the test result; intended to help clinicians understand the underlying rationale in ordering tests, interpreting test results, and acting on the diagnostic test findings. | -- How Do You Interpret These Test Results? (or What Would You Do Next?) with 4 plausible responses
- Case presentation: 200 words
- Discussion: 650 words
- 1 table
- ≤10 references
- ≤3 authors
- Patient permission required
| -Clinical Evidence Synopsis
full info
| -Synopsis is intended to help clinicians apply evidence to practice by summarizing new evidence from recently published data-driven reviews and reports.
| -- 800 words
- Begins with 1-sentence clinical question and 1-sentence clinical application statement
- 1 Evidence Profile box
- 1 table or figure
- ≤7 references
- ≤3 authors
- Requires a presubmission inquiry
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
|
Clinical Review and Education
ReviewsThe journal will consider 2 types of review articles: Systematic Reviews
Narrative ReviewThese types of Review articles differ by the scope and level of analysis of the literature searches and the titles used. Systematic Reviews require a complete systematic search of the literature using multiple databases, covering many years, and grading of the quality of the cited evidence. Narrative Reviews do not require a rigorous literature search but should rely on evidence and should be written by established experts in the field. See below for more detail on each type of Review. Titles for these Reviews should include a concise description of the main topic. Use specific and not overly broad wording for the title; the type of review should be indicated in the subtitle. For example: Behavioral Treatment of Obesity: A Systematic Review
Behavioral Treatment of Obesity: A Review (note: the word "narrative" is not included in the subtitle) Systematic Review (without meta-analysis)Systematic Reviews are critical assessments of the literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. Systematic Reviews without meta-analysis are published as Reviews; those with meta-analysis are published as Original Investigations (see Meta-analysis). Systematic Reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice and provide an evidence-based, balanced, patient-oriented review on a focused topic. Follow EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines. The basic structure of manuscripts reporting Systematic Reviews should include the following: Abstract (structured abstract of no more than 350 words); Introduction (150-250 words); Methods (150-250 words); Results (1000-1250 words, with the following subsections, if appropriate, depending on the specific question or issue addressed: Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, Assessment and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis); Discussion (1000 words); and Conclusions (2-3 sentences). Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including abstract, tables, figures, acknowledgments, references, and online-only material), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures and no more than 50-75 references. For an example of a published Systematic Review, see JAMA. 2014;312(6):631-640 and below for the general structure of a Systematic Review article.
Narrative ReviewNarrative Reviews on clinical topics provide an up-to-date review for clinicians on a topic of general common interest from the perspective of internationally recognized experts in these disciplines. The focus of Narrative Reviews will be an update on current understanding of the physiology of the disease or condition, diagnostic consideration, and treatment. These reviews should address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice. Narrative Reviews do not require (but may include) a systematic review of the literature search. Recommendations should be supported with evidence and should rely on recent systematic reviews and guidelines, if available, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. The basic structure of manuscripts reporting Narrative Reviews should include the following: Abstract (structured abstract of no more than 300 words); Introduction (150-250 words); Methods, if included (150-250 words); Discussion/Observations (1000-1250 words, with the following subsections, if appropriate: Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, Assessment and Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis); and Conclusions (2-3 sentences). Typical length: 2000-3500 words (maximum), with no more than a total of 5 tables and/or figures, and no more than 50-75 references. For an example of this type of article, see JAMA. 2015;314(23):2544-2554.
Specific Components of a Narrative ReviewAbstract (300 words) Narrative Review articles should include a 3-part structured abstract of no more than 300 words using the headings listed below: Importance: An overview of the topic and discussion of the main objective or reason for this review. Observations: The principal observations and findings of the review. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions of the review that are supported by the information, along with clinical applications. How the findings are clinically relevant should be specifically stated.
Introduction (150-250 words) The first 2 to 3 sentences of the Introduction should draw in readers in such that they want to continue reading the article and should establish the importance of the Review. Reviews should include the clinical question or issue and its importance for general medical practice, specialty practice, or public health. The first paragraph should provide a general summary of the clinical problem (eg, obesity). The next paragraph should focus on the specific aspect of the clinical problem the article will explore (eg, treatments for obesity). Briefly summarize the epidemiology of the disease. This information should include disease prevalence and incidence and perhaps discussion of the presence and frequency of any relevant subpopulations and any geographic or seasonal variations of the disease if these are relevant. The third paragraph should discuss exactly what material will be covered in the Review (eg, obesity treatments).
Methods (150-250 words) A Methods section is not required for Narrative Reviews, but may be included to summarize a literature search that was conducted for this Review. If included, briefly describe the characteristics of the literature searched and included in the review, including the bibliographic databases and other sources searched, search terms used, dates included in the search, date the literature search was conducted, and any process used to evaluate the literature. Discussion/Observations (1000-1250 words) The principal observations of the Narrative Review generally should include the subsections listed below, although each section may not be necessary for some topics. The word counts following each subsection are suggested to assist with keeping the overall Observations section limited to 1000-1250 words. Pathophysiology (150-250 words). Provide a brief overview of the pathophysiology of the disease. The intent is to provide readers with sufficient background information about the underpinnings of a disease to provide context for the rest of the article. Clinical Presentation (150-250 words). Briefly describe the clinical characteristics that result in a patient seeking medical care for the condition or what features of the disease should lead a physician to evaluate or treat it. Assessment and Diagnosis (250-300 words). Describe the clinical examination for evaluation of the disease and explain the most salient physical examination findings. If laboratory or imaging studies are necessary, provide the sensitivity and specificity and diagnostic accuracy of these tests and consider providing positive and negative likelihood ratios. Sequences of diagnostic tests are best presented as algorithms or in tables. Treatment (250-500 words). Treatments should be based on the most recently available and highest level of evidence. Treatment options should be summarized in the text and presented in detail in tables along with an indication of the strength of evidence supporting the individual treatments. In general, treatment recommendations should be supported by a systematic review or a high-quality guideline. If possible, the costs for various treatments should be provided. Prognosis (100-150 words). A section outlining the overall prognosis for the condition, once treated, should be included.
Conclusions Include a 2- to 3-sentence summary of the major conclusions of the review. Tables For most Narrative Reviews, tables should be included that summarize the epidemiology, diagnostic tools, and therapies available for the disease. In some cases, these 3 topics may not all be relevant to the review topic and tables may be appropriately modified to fit the review. Include a fourth table that compares the findings of the review and current clinical practice recommendations or diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty or controversies. Table 1: Major epidemiologic and burden of disease facts Table 2: Major diagnostic tools available Table 3: Major therapies available Table 4: Current clinical practice recommendations and/or diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty, and controversies
Tables summarizing treatments should have information organized by category of treatment and then by individual treatments. Columns may include the treatment, strength of evidence supporting the treatment, the effect of the treatment (preferably shown as the treatment's effect as compared to control on the measured outcome together with 95% confidence intervals), adverse effects, and very brief explanatory comments, if necessary. Lengthy text-based tables should be avoided. Additional or lengthy tables may be published online only, if justified. Follow additional instructions for preparation and submission of Tables. Figures Figures that illustrate pathophysiology or clinical presentation may be included. Note: All figures will be re-created. We encourage videos, if appropriate, to illustrate a point made or process described in the Review. Follow additional instructions for preparation and submission of Figures and Video.
Special CommunicationNote: This journal publishes very few of these types of articles. These manuscripts describe an important issue in clinical medicine, public health, health policy, or medical research in a scholarly, thorough, well-referenced, systematic, and evidence-based manner. A structured abstract is required. Maximum length: 3000 words of text (not including tables, figures, or references) with no more than a total of 4 tables and/or figures and no more than 50 references. For a recently published example, see JAMA. 2019;322(20):1996-2016.
Clinical ChallengeClinical Challenge presents an actual patient scenario about a specific disease or condition with an accompanying clinical image. Authors should provide 4 single-phrase plausible diagnosis options with one of these being the most correct response for the question "What Is Your Diagnosis?" Manuscripts should include a brief discussion of the relevant clinical issues and provide well-supported (evidence-based) explanations for why 1 of the 4 potential diagnoses is correct and the other options are not. For a recently published example, see JAMA Oncology. 2021;7(9):1392-1393. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.1707. All diagnostic and treatment recommendations should be supported by referencing recent authoritative texts or journal articles. Preferably, these recommendations should be supported by governmental or multisociety guidelines, clinical trials, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. The text should have a maximum length of 850 words, consisting of no more than 250 words for the case presentation, question, and 4 one-sentence answers, followed by no more than 600 words that include the diagnosis and a brief discussion. There should be no more than 3 authors. At least 1 of the authors, ideally the corresponding author, should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic. There should be no more than 10 references, and no more than 2 small figures totaling 3 image components (Figure 1, with no more than 2 components, for the case presentation; and Figure 2, with no more than 1 component, for the diagnosis and discussion). Please note: If the discussion includes a Figure, the word count for the discussion should be no more than 500 words.
Provide a short title that briefly describes the disease entity or case presentation and does not include the diagnosis. Do not include the patient's race, ethnicity, or country of origin in the title or the first line of the article. If this information is clinically relevant and necessary, it can be included in the case description. In addition, the JAMA Network Patient Permission form must be completed and signed by the patient (or a family member if the patient has died, is a minor, or is an adult without decisional capacity) and included at the time of manuscript submission. Please read Patient Identification before submitting your manuscript. The image and case presentation should be from the same patient and must not have been published previously. In some cases, additional figures may be included to accompany the answer explanations (see description of additional figure(s) above). All images submitted should be high-quality .jpg or .tif files. Submit the original version of all image files at the highest resolution possible without labels. In general, the original image file should have a minimum resolution of 350 dpi at a width of about 5 inches. Do not increase the original resolution, resize, or crop the image; where applicable, we will crop to maintain patient confidentiality. If any labels, arrowheads, or A/B panel indicators are desired, provide a separate labeled version of the figure(s) for reference. All labels will be reformatted to journal style. For more information on how to submit figures, see Figures.We would like to receive common problems presenting uncommonly, rather than unusual or rare conditions (ie, "zebras"). These cases should be of interest to clinicians; they should be problems that clinicians are likely to encounter and have an outstanding image that illustrates the disorder and contributes to the diagnostic challenge. Manuscripts not meeting these guidelines will not be considered.
Diagnostic Test InterpretationDiagnostic Test Interpretation presents the results of a diagnostic test from a single patient and explores the clinical application of the test result. The Diagnostic Test Interpretation is intended to help clinicians understand the underlying rationale in ordering tests, interpreting test results, and acting on the diagnostic test findings. The diagnostic test result must be obtained from the care of an actual patient and must include that patient's written permission. The JAMA Network Patient Permission form should be read and completed and signed by the patient (or a family member if the patient has died, is a minor, or is an adult without decisional capacity) and included at the time of manuscript submission. The results of laboratory, pathologic, or radiographic tests are appropriate but clinical images are not. Results of the diagnostic test of interest (and related tests) and the range of reference values should be included after the case. Authors of manuscripts based on clinical images should consult the instructions for Clinical Challenge. Provide a short title that briefly describes the disease entity or case presentation and does not include the diagnosis. Do not include the patient's race, ethnicity, or country of origin in the title or first line of the article. If this information is clinically relevant and necessary, it can be included in the case description. Manuscripts for Diagnostic Test Interpretation should have the following sections: Case presentation. The case presentation should be brief and focus on the diagnostic test in question. At the end of the case presentation the pertinent diagnostic test results and reference ranges should be provided (200 words). How do you interpret these test results? (or What would you do next?) Four plausible responses should be provided. While most Diagnostic Test Interpretation articles will pose the question "How do you interpret these results?" a subset may more appropriately focus on the next best step regarding the workup of the abnormal test result. In these cases, the question "How do you interpret these test results?" can be replaced with "What would you do next?" Either question should be presented in the format of a multiple choice question with a single correct (or best) answer. The answers may be brief phrases or short sentences, should be similar in length, and should be arranged alphabetically by first word in the answer. Response options should not describe treatments (about 50 words). Test characteristics. A brief review of the diagnostic test should be provided (approximately 200 words). For biomarkers, this should include a brief description of the related physiology. Test accuracy should be reported using sensitivity and specificity or likelihood ratios, and predictive values should be provided for common clinical scenarios. Please use likelihood ratios whenever possible, since they do not depend on disease prevalence. The prevalence of the disease should be stated so that the pretest probability may be estimated. For example, "For patients with a typical disease prevalence of 10%, the predictive values of positive and negative test results are approximately 50% and 1%, respectively." Discussion of the application and utility of the diagnostic test should be based on a high-quality systematic review or authoritative practice guideline. If a more recent, original study supersedes or adds meaningfully to the prior synthesis of research, that article also should be cited. The approximate fee for the test should be provided. For example, some fees for laboratory tests can be obtained from the Medicare fee schedules. Radiology procedure fees can be found at the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule website. Application of test result to this patient. A brief discussion of how the diagnostic test result will facilitate the next steps in a patient's management should be presented. Please also address the correct answer to the question about test interpretation in this section (200 words). What Are Alternative Diagnostic Testing Approaches? If there are different testing strategies that can be used to evaluate patients to establish a diagnosis, please discuss them (100 words). Patient Outcome. Long-term follow-up (most recent as possible) regarding the patient's condition and outcome of treatment is necessary (100 words). Clinical Bottom Line. Please provide a bulleted list of 3-5 items that reflect the most important message readers should obtain from this article.
The overall text of the manuscript should have a maximum of 850 words, no more than 10 references, and no more than 3 authors. At least 1 of the authors, ideally the corresponding author, should have sufficient expertise and experience with the topic. The case presentation must not have been previously published. Manuscripts not meeting these guidelines will not be considered.
Clinical Evidence SynopsisClinical Evidence Synopsis is intended to help clinicians apply evidence to practice by summarizing new evidence from recently published data-driven reviews and reports, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews or the US Preventive Services Task Force Reports. Manuscripts submitted for the Clinical Evidence Synopsis section should begin with a 1-sentence Clinical Question (such as, "Clinical Question: What hemoglobin threshold for prescribing red blood cell transfusions is best for minimizing both red blood cell use and adverse clinical outcomes in anemic patients?") and a 1-sentence Clinical Application statement (such as, "Clinical Application: Compared with higher hemoglobin thresholds, a hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/dL or 8 g/dL reduces the number of red blood cell units transfused without adverse associations with mortality, cardiac morbidity, functional recovery, or length of hospital stay."). The manuscript should include the following main headings and subsections: Introduction: 1 brief paragraph of background and context for the clinical question Evidence Profile: In a Box or list include the following bulleted sections: - No. of studies overall
- No. of randomized controlled trials
- Study years (eg, 1956 to 2012) (not years of publication)
- No. of patients
- Men XX% Women XX%
- Race/ethnicity
- Age (mean XX and range xx-xxx)
- Setting
- Countries
- Comparison (eg, higher vs lower hemoglobin threshold for transfusion of patients with anemia)
- Primary outcomes
- Secondary outcomes
If the manuscript summarizes a Cochrane Collaboration review, please indicate at the bottom of the Evidence Profile whether the full review represents an original review or an update. The original publication (eg, Cochrane review or US Preventive Services Task Force) should be referenced. Summary of Findings: a brief summary of the results of the review or report with no more than 1 simple table or figure. Results must include absolute rates or absolute differences and number needed to treat. Discussion: a brief summary of the key results placed in context for the clinician. This section should include 3 subheadings: Limitations; Comparison of Findings With Current Practice Guidelines (if applicable); and Areas in Need of Future Study.
The text length (complete manuscript and Evidence Profile excluding the title, references, and acknowledgment section) should have a maximum length of 800 words with 1 table or figure and no more than 7 references. Manuscripts submitted for the Clinical Evidence Synopsis section should have no more than 3 authors. For an example, see JAMA. 2013;309(1):83-84. Please submit the original full review at the time the Clinical Evidence Synopsis is submitted.
Content Types | Nature Medicine
ReviewA Review is an authoritative, balanced and scholarly survey of recent developments in a research field. The requirement for balance need not prevent authors from proposing a specific viewpoint, but if there are controversies in the field, the authors must treat them in an even-handed way. The scope of a Review should be broad enough that it is not dominated by the work of a single laboratory, and particularly not by the authors' own work. Format - Main text – 4,000 words.
- Illustrations are strongly encouraged.
- References – up to 100.
- Citations – these should be selective and, in the case of particularly important studies (≤ 10% of all the references), we encourage authors to provide short annotations explaining why these are key contributions.
- Reviews include received/accepted dates.
- Reviews are peer reviewed.
ReviewA Review is an authoritative, balanced and scholarly survey of recent developments in a research field. Although Reviews should be recognized as scholarly by specialists in the field, they should be written with a view to informing non-specialist readers. Thus, Reviews should be presented using simple prose, avoiding excessive jargon and technical detail. The editor will invite the author to submit a synopsis initially. Very few Reviews are published in Nature Communications and we are able to pursue only a small fraction of the many excellent unsolicited submissions we receive. The synopsis should outline the basic structure of the article; list the material to be covered with an indication of the proposed depth of coverage; indicate how the material will be logically arranged; and list some of the key references that will be included. The synopsis should be accompanied by a 300-500 word outline of the background to the topic which summarises the progress made to date and gives the rationale and timing for considering the Review. Reviews begin with a title of up to 15 words and an abstract of less than 100 words written for a general audience. The main text should be less than 6,000 words. Reviews can include up to 8 display items (figures, tables and/or boxes). Figure legends are limited to 350 words and boxes to 750 words. As a guide, references should not exceed 100 in number, so citations should be selective. Footnotes are not used. Review articles should typically have no more than three authors. We prefer to avoid reproducing material (for example, figures, tables, boxes and videos) directly from other publications unless it is exceptionally informative. However, we recognize that to illustrate some concepts the use of published data is required and the reuse of previously published display items might be necessary. The scope of a Review should be broad enough that it is not dominated by the work of a single laboratory, and particularly not by the authors' own work. Unpublished primary research data are not permitted in Reviews. Authors must provide competing interests and author contributions statements before publication. Reviews include received/accepted dates. Reviews are always peer reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance, and they are edited in consultation with the editorial team.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Content Types | Nature Medicine
PerspectivePerspective 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.
______________________________________________ PerspectiveA 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.
|
