Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-25 (1476030)

Clipboard (0)

Related Articles

1.  Honoring our helpers 
This special issue of the Journal of Radiology Case Reports honors the reviewers who donated their time and expertise throughout the year 2009 to the high quality and success of this journal.
PMCID: PMC3303340  PMID: 22470688
2.  Honoring our helpers 
This special issue of the Journal of Radiology Case Reports honors the reviewers who donated their time and expertise throughout the year 2010 to the high quality and success of this journal.
PMCID: PMC3303365  PMID: 22470702
3.  Honoring our helpers 
This special issue of the Journal of Radiology Case Reports honors the reviewers who donated their time and expertise throughout the year 2012 to the high quality and success of this journal.
PMCID: PMC3557126
4.  Honoring our helpers 
This special issue of the Journal of Radiology Case Reports honors the reviewers who donated their time and expertise throughout the year 2013 to the high quality and success of this journal.
PMCID: PMC4037246  PMID: 24967015
5.  Honoring our helpers 
This special issue of the Journal of Radiology Case Reports honors the reviewers who donated their time and expertise throughout the year 2014 to the high quality and success of this journal.
PMCID: PMC4391808
6.  Honoring our helpers 
This special issue of the Journal of Radiology Case Reports honors the reviewers who donated their time and expertise to the high quality and success of this journal.
PMCID: PMC3303260  PMID: 22470609
7.  The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality 
PLoS Medicine  2007;4(1):e40.
Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality science, but very little is known about the previous experiences and training that might identify high-quality peer reviewers. The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus the qualifications of their reviewers, are ill defined. More objective selection of peer reviewers might improve the journal peer review process and thus the quality of published science.
Methods and Findings
306 experienced reviewers (71% of all those associated with a specialty journal) completed a survey of past training and experiences postulated to improve peer review skills. Reviewers performed 2,856 reviews of 1,484 separate manuscripts during a four-year study period, all prospectively rated on a standardized quality scale by editors. Multivariable analysis revealed that most variables, including academic rank, formal training in critical appraisal or statistics, or status as principal investigator of a grant, failed to predict performance of higher-quality reviews. The only significant predictors of quality were working in a university-operated hospital versus other teaching environment and relative youth (under ten years of experience after finishing training). Being on an editorial board and doing formal grant (study section) review were each predictors for only one of our two comparisons. However, the predictive power of all variables was weak.
Our study confirms that there are no easily identifiable types of formal training or experience that predict reviewer performance. Skill in scientific peer review may be as ill defined and hard to impart as is “common sense.” Without a better understanding of those skills, it seems unlikely journals and editors will be successful in systematically improving their selection of reviewers. This inability to predict performance makes it imperative that all but the smallest journals implement routine review ratings systems to routinely monitor the quality of their reviews (and thus the quality of the science they publish).
A survey of experienced reviewers, asked about training they had received in peer review, found there are no easily identifiable types of formal training and experience that predict reviewer performance.
Editors' Summary
When medical researchers have concluded their research and written it up, the next step is to get it published as an article in a journal, so that the findings can be circulated widely. These published findings help determine subsequent research and clinical use. The editors of reputable journals, including PLoS Medicine, have to decide whether the articles sent to them are of good quality and accurate and whether they will be of interest to the readers of their journal. To do this they need to obtain specialist advice, so they contact experts in the topic of the research article and ask them to write reports. This is the process of scientific peer review, and the experts who write such reports are known as “peer reviewers.” Although the editors make the final decision, the advice and criticism of these peer reviewers to the editors is essential in making decisions on publication, and usually in requiring authors to make changes to their manuscript. The contribution that peer reviewers have made to the article by the time it is finally published may, therefore, be quite considerable.
Although peer review is accepted as a key part of the process for the publishing of medical research, many people have argued that there are flaws in the system. For example, there may be an element of luck involved; one author might find their paper being reviewed by a reviewer who is biased against the approach they have adopted or who is a very critical person by nature, and another author may have the good fortune to have their work considered by someone who is much more favorably disposed toward their work. Some reviewers are more knowledgeable and thorough in their work than others. The editors of medical journals try to take in account such biases and quality factors in their choice of peer reviewers or when assessing the reviews. Some journals have run training courses for experts who review for them regularly to try to make the standard of peer review as high as possible.
Why Was This Study Done?
It is hard for journal editors to know who will make a good peer reviewer, and there is no proven system for choosing them. The authors of this study wanted to identify the previous experiences and training that make up the background of good peer reviewers and compare them with the quality of the reviews provided. This would help journal editors select good people for the task in future, and as a result will affect the quality of science they publish for readers, including other researchers.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The authors contacted all the regular reviewers from one specialist journal (Annals of Emergency Medicine). A total of 306 of these experienced reviewers (71% of all those associated with the journal) completed a survey of past training and experiences that might be expected to improve peer review skills. These reviewers had done 2,856 reviews of 1,484 separate manuscripts during a four-year study period, and during this time the quality of the reviews had been rated by the journal's editors. Surprisingly, most variables, including academic rank, formal training in critical appraisal or statistics, or status as principal investigator of a grant, failed to predict performance of higher-quality reviews. The only significant predictors of quality were working in a university-operated hospital versus other teaching environment and relative youth (under ten years of experience after finishing training), and even these were only weak predictors.
What Do These Findings Mean?
This study suggest that there are no easily identifiable types of formal training or experience that predict peer reviewer performance, although it is clear that some reviewers (and reviews) are better than others. The authors suggest that it is essential therefore that journals routinely monitor the quality of reviews submitted to them to ensure they are getting good advice (a practice that is not universal).
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at
• WAME is an association of editors from many countries who seek to foster international cooperation among editors of peer-reviewed medical journals
• The Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication is one of a series of conferences on peer review
• The PLoS Medicine guidelines for reviewers outline what we look for in a review
• The Council of Science Editors promotes ethical scientific publishing practices
• An editorial also published in this issue of PLoS Medicine discusses the peer review process further
PMCID: PMC1796627  PMID: 17411314
8.  Incorporating resident research into the dermatology residency program 
Programmatic changes for the dermatology residency program at The University of Texas Medical Branch were first introduced in 2005, with the faculty goal incorporating formal dermatology research projects into the 3-year postgraduate training period. This curriculum initially developed as a recommendation for voluntary scholarly project activity by residents, but it evolved into a program requirement for all residents in 2009. Departmental support for this activity includes assignment of a faculty mentor with similar interest about the research topic, financial support from the department for needed supplies, materials, and statistical consultation with the Office of Biostatistics for study design and data analysis, a 2-week elective that provides protected time from clinical activities for the purpose of preparing research for publication and submission to a peer-reviewed medical journal, and a departmental award in recognition for the best resident scholarly project each year. Since the inception of this program, five classes have graduated a total of 16 residents. Ten residents submitted their research studies for peer review and published their scholarly projects in seven dermatology journals through the current academic year. These articles included three prospective investigations, three surveys, one article related to dermatology education, one retrospective chart review, one case series, and one article about dermatopathology. An additional article from a 2012 graduate about dermatology education has also been submitted to a journal. This new program for residents was adapted from our historically successful Dermatology Honors Research Program for medical students at The University of Texas Medical Branch. Our experience with this academic initiative to promote dermatology research by residents is outlined. It is recommended that additional residency programs should consider adopting similar research programs to enrich resident education.
PMCID: PMC3726645  PMID: 23901305
dermatology; resident; research; education; accreditation
9.  Anatomy of the Epidemiological Literature on the 2003 SARS Outbreaks in Hong Kong and Toronto: A Time-Stratified Review 
PLoS Medicine  2010;7(5):e1000272.
Weijia Xing and colleagues reviewed the published epidemiological literature on SARS and show that less than a quarter of papers were published during the epidemic itself, suggesting that the research published lagged substantially behind the need for it.
Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, especially those of a global nature, require rapid epidemiological analysis and information dissemination. The final products of those activities usually comprise internal memoranda and briefs within public health authorities and original research published in peer-reviewed journals. Using the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic as an example, we conducted a comprehensive time-stratified review of the published literature to describe the different types of epidemiological outputs.
Methods and Findings
We identified and analyzed all published articles on the epidemiology of the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong or Toronto. The analysis was stratified by study design, research domain, data collection, and analytical technique. We compared the SARS-case and matched-control non-SARS articles published according to the timeline of submission, acceptance, and publication. The impact factors of the publishing journals were examined according to the time of publication of SARS articles, and the numbers of citations received by SARS-case and matched-control articles submitted during and after the epidemic were compared. Descriptive, analytical, theoretical, and experimental epidemiology concerned, respectively, 54%, 30%, 11%, and 6% of the studies. Only 22% of the studies were submitted, 8% accepted, and 7% published during the epidemic. The submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic period were significantly shorter than the corresponding intervals of matched-control non-SARS articles published in the same journal issues (p<0.001 and p<0.01, respectively). The differences of median submission-to-acceptance intervals and median acceptance-to-publication intervals between SARS articles and their corresponding control articles were 106.5 d (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.0–140.1) and 63.5 d (95% CI 18.0–94.1), respectively. The median numbers of citations of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic and over the 2 y thereafter were 17 (interquartile range [IQR] 8.0–52.0) and 8 (IQR 3.2–21.8), respectively, significantly higher than the median numbers of control article citations (15, IQR 8.5–16.5, p<0.05, and 7, IQR 3.0–12.0, p<0.01, respectively).
A majority of the epidemiological articles on SARS were submitted after the epidemic had ended, although the corresponding studies had relevance to public health authorities during the epidemic. To minimize the lag between research and the exigency of public health practice in the future, researchers should consider adopting common, predefined protocols and ready-to-use instruments to improve timeliness, and thus, relevance, in addition to standardizing comparability across studies. To facilitate information dissemination, journal managers should reengineer their fast-track channels, which should be adapted to the purpose of an emerging outbreak, taking into account the requirement of high standards of quality for scientific journals and competition with other online resources.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Every now and then, a new infectious disease appears in a human population or an old disease becomes much more common or more geographically widespread. Recently, several such “emerging infectious diseases” have become major public health problems. For example, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have all emerged in the past three decades and spread rapidly round the world. When an outbreak (epidemic) of an emerging infectious disease occurs, epidemiologists (scientists who study the causes, distribution, and control of diseases in populations) swing into action, collecting and analyzing data on the new threat to human health. Epidemiological studies are rapidly launched to identify the causative agent of the new disease, to investigate how the disease spreads, to define diagnostic criteria for the disease, to evaluate potential treatments, and to devise ways to control the disease's spread. Public health officials then use the results of these studies to bring the epidemic under control.
Why Was This Study Done?
Clearly, epidemics of emerging infectious diseases can only be controlled rapidly and effectively if the results of epidemiological studies are made widely available in a timely manner. Public health bulletins (for example, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the US Centers from Disease Control and Prevention) are an important way of disseminating information as is the publication of original research in peer-reviewed academic journals. But how timely is this second dissemination route? Submission, peer-review, revision, re-review, acceptance, and publication of a piece of academic research can be a long process, the speed of which is affected by the responses of both authors and journals. In this study, the researchers analyze how the results of academic epidemiological research are submitted and published in journals during and after an emerging infectious disease epidemic using the 2003 SARS epidemic as an example. The first case of SARS was identified in Asia in February 2003 and rapidly spread around the world. 8,098 people became ill with SARS and 774 died before the epidemic was halted in July 2003.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified more than 300 journal articles covering epidemiological research into the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong, China, and Toronto, Canada (two cities strongly affected by the epidemic) that were published online or in print between January 1, 2003 and July 31, 2007. The researchers' analysis of these articles shows that more than half them were descriptive epidemiological studies, investigations that focused on describing the distribution of SARS; a third were analytical epidemiological studies that tried to discover the cause of SARS. Overall, 22% of the journal articles were submitted for publication during the epidemic. Only 8% of the articles were accepted for publication and only 7% were actually published during the epidemic. The median (average) submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals for SARS articles submitted during the epidemic were 55 and 77.5 days, respectively, much shorter intervals than those for non-SARS articles published in the same journal issues. After the epidemic was over, the submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals for SARS articles was similar to that of non-SARS articles.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that, although the academic response to the SARS epidemic was rapid, most articles on the epidemiology of SARS were published after the epidemic was over even though SARS was a major threat to public health. Possible reasons for this publication delay include the time taken by authors to prepare and undertake their studies, to write and submit their papers, and, possibly, their tendency to first submit their results to high profile journals. The time then taken by journals to review the studies, make decisions about publication, and complete the publication process might also have delayed matters. To minimize future delays in the publication of epidemiological research on emerging infectious diseases, epidemiologists could adopt common, predefined protocols and ready-to-use instruments, which would improve timeliness and ensure comparability across studies, suggest the researchers. Journals, in turn, could improve their fast-track procedures and could consider setting up online sections that could be activated when an emerging infectious disease outbreak occurred. Finally, journals could consider altering their review system to speed up the publication process provided the quality of the final published articles was not compromised.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at
The US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provides information on emerging infectious diseases
The US Centers for Control and Prevention of Diseases also provides information about emerging infectious diseases, including links to other resources, and information on SARS
Wikipedia has a page on epidemiology (note that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages)
The World Health Organization has information on SARS (in several languages)
PMCID: PMC2864302  PMID: 20454570
10.  A guide to writing case reports for the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BioMed Central Research Notes 
Case reports are a time-honored, important, integral, and accepted part of the medical literature. Both the Journal of Medical Case Reports and the Case Report section of BioMed Central Research Notes are committed to case report publication, and each have different criteria. Journal of Medical Case Reports was the world’s first international, PubMed-listed medical journal devoted to publishing case reports from all clinical disciplines and was launched in 2007. The Case Report section of BioMed Central Research Notes was created and began publishing case reports in 2012. Between the two of them, thousands of peer-reviewed case reports have now been published with a worldwide audience. Authors now also have Cases Database, a continually updated, freely accessible database of thousands of medical case reports from multiple publishers. This informal editorial outlines the process and mechanics of how and when to write a case report, and provides a brief look into the editorial process behind each of these complementary journals along with the author’s anecdotes in the hope of inspiring all authors (both novice and experienced) to write and continue writing case reports of all specialties. Useful hyperlinks are embedded throughout for easy and quick reference to style guidelines for both journals.
PMCID: PMC3879062  PMID: 24283456
11.  Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study 
PLoS Medicine  2010;7(10):e1000354.
Andreas Lundh and colleagues investigated the effect of publication of large industry-supported trials on citations and journal income, through reprint sales, in six general medical journals
Transparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials' influence on journal impact factors and revenue.
Methods and Findings
We sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996–1997 and 2005–2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005–2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005–2006.
Publication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals' revenue and impact.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Medical journals publish many different types of papers that inform doctors about the latest research advances and the latest treatments for their patients. They publish articles that describe laboratory-based research into the causes of diseases and the identification of potential new drugs. They publish the results of early clinical trials in which a few patients are given a potential new drug to check its safety. Finally and most importantly, they publish the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are studies in which large numbers of patients are randomly allocated to different treatments without the patient or the clinician knowing the allocation and the efficacy of the various treatments compared. RCTs are best way of determining whether a new drug is effective and have to be completed before a drug can be marketed. Because RCTs are very expensive, they are often supported by drug companies. That is, drug companies provide grants or drugs for the trial or assist with data analysis and/or article preparation.
Why Was This Study Done?
Whenever a medical journal publishes an article, the article's authors have to declare any conflicts of interest such as financial gain from the paper's publication. Conflict of interest statements help readers assess papers—an author who owns the patent for a drug, for example, might put an unduly positive spin on his/her results. The experts who review papers for journals before publication provide similar conflict of interest statements. But what about the journal editors who ultimately decide which papers get published? The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which produces medical publishing guidelines, states that: “Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues that they might judge.” However, the publication of industry-supported RCTs might create “indirect” conflicts of interest for journals by boosting the journal's impact factor (a measure of a journal's importance based on how often its articles are cited) and its income through the sale of reprints to drug companies. In this study, the researchers investigate whether the publication of industry-supported RCTs influences the impact factors and finances of six major medical journals.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers determined which RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, and three other major medical journals in 1996–1997 and 2005–2006 were supported wholly, partly, or not at all by industry. They then used the online academic citation index Web of Science to calculate an approximate impact factor for each journal for 1998 and 2007 and calculated the effect of the published RCTs on the impact factor. The proportion of RCTs with sole industry support varied between journals. Thus, 32% of the RCTs published in the NEJM during both two-year periods had industry support whereas only 7% of the RCTs published in the BMJ in 2005–2006 had industry support. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than RCTs with other types of support and omitting industry-supported RCTs from impact factor calculations decreased all the approximate journal impact factors. For example, omitting all RCTs with industry or mixed support decreased the 2007 BMJ and NEJM impact factors by 1% and 15%, respectively. Finally, the researchers asked each journal's editor about their journal's income from industry sources. For the BMJ and The Lancet, the only journals that provided this information, income from reprint sales was 3% and 41%, respectively, of total income in 2005–2006.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that the publication of industry-supported RCTs was associated with an increase in the approximate impact factors of these six major medical journals. Because these journals publish numerous RCTs, this result may not be generalizable to other journals. These findings also indicate that income from reprint sales can be a substantial proportion of a journal's total income. Importantly, these findings do not imply that the decisions of editors are affected by the possibility that the publication of an industry-supported trial might improve their journal's impact factor or income. Nevertheless, the researchers suggest, journals should live up to the same principles related to conflicts of interest as those that they require from their authors and should routinely disclose information on the source and amount of income that they receive.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at
This study is further discussed in a PLoS Medicine Perspective by Harvey Marcovitch
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides information about the publication of medical research, including conflicts of interest
The World Association of Medical Editors also provides information on conflicts of interest in medical journals
Information about impact factors is provided by Thomson Reuters, a provider of intelligent information for businesses and professionals; Thomson Reuters also runs Web of Science
PMCID: PMC2964336  PMID: 21048986
12.  Place and Cause of Death in Centenarians: A Population-Based Observational Study in England, 2001 to 2010 
PLoS Medicine  2014;11(6):e1001653.
Catherine J. Evans and colleagues studied how many and where centenarians in England die, their causes of death, and how these measures have changed from 2001 to 2010.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Centenarians are a rapidly growing demographic group worldwide, yet their health and social care needs are seldom considered. This study aims to examine trends in place of death and associations for centenarians in England over 10 years to consider policy implications of extreme longevity.
Methods and Findings
This is a population-based observational study using death registration data linked with area-level indices of multiple deprivations for people aged ≥100 years who died 2001 to 2010 in England, compared with those dying at ages 80-99. We used linear regression to examine the time trends in number of deaths and place of death, and Poisson regression to evaluate factors associated with centenarians’ place of death. The cohort totalled 35,867 people with a median age at death of 101 years (range: 100–115 years). Centenarian deaths increased 56% (95% CI 53.8%–57.4%) in 10 years. Most died in a care home with (26.7%, 95% CI 26.3%–27.2%) or without nursing (34.5%, 95% CI 34.0%–35.0%) or in hospital (27.2%, 95% CI 26.7%–27.6%). The proportion of deaths in nursing homes decreased over 10 years (−0.36% annually, 95% CI −0.63% to −0.09%, p = 0.014), while hospital deaths changed little (0.25% annually, 95% CI −0.06% to 0.57%, p = 0.09). Dying with frailty was common with “old age” stated in 75.6% of death certifications. Centenarians were more likely to die of pneumonia (e.g., 17.7% [95% CI 17.3%–18.1%] versus 6.0% [5.9%–6.0%] for those aged 80–84 years) and old age/frailty (28.1% [27.6%–28.5%] versus 0.9% [0.9%–0.9%] for those aged 80–84 years) and less likely to die of cancer (4.4% [4.2%–4.6%] versus 24.5% [24.6%–25.4%] for those aged 80–84 years) and ischemic heart disease (8.6% [8.3%–8.9%] versus 19.0% [18.9%–19.0%] for those aged 80–84 years) than were younger elderly patients. More care home beds available per 1,000 population were associated with fewer deaths in hospital (PR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98–0.99, p<0.001).
Centenarians are more likely to have causes of death certified as pneumonia and frailty and less likely to have causes of death of cancer or ischemic heart disease, compared with younger elderly patients. To reduce reliance on hospital care at the end of life requires recognition of centenarians’ increased likelihood to “acute” decline, notably from pneumonia, and wider provision of anticipatory care to enable people to remain in their usual residence, and increasing care home bed capacity.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors’ Summary
People who live to be more than 100 years old—centenarians—are congratulated and honored in many countries. In the UK, for example, the Queen sends a personal greeting to individuals on their 100th birthday. The number of UK residents who reach this notable milestone is increasing steadily, roughly doubling every 10 years. The latest Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures indicate that 13,350 centenarians were living in the UK in 2012 (20 centenarians per 100,000 people in the population) compared to only 7,740 in 2002. If current trends continue, by 2066 there may be more than half a million centenarians living in the UK. And similar increases in the numbers of centenarians are being seen in many other countries. The exact number of centenarians living worldwide is uncertain but is thought to be around 317,000 and is projected to rise to about 18 million by the end of this century.
Why Was This Study Done?
Traditional blessings often include the wish that the blessing’s recipient lives to be at least 100 years old. However, extreme longevity is associated with increasing frailty—declining physical function, increasing disability, and increasing vulnerability to a poor clinical outcome following, for example, an infection. Consequently, many centenarians require 24-hour per day care in a nursing home or a residential care home. Moreover, although elderly people, including centenarians, generally prefer to die in a home environment rather than a clinical environment, many centenarians end up dying in a hospital. To ensure that centenarians get their preferred end-of-life care, policy makers and clinicians need to know as much as possible about the health and social needs of this specific and unique group of elderly people. In this population-based observational study, the researchers examine trends in the place of death and factors associated with the place of death among centenarians in England over a 10-year period.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers extracted information about the place and cause of death of centenarians in England between 2001 and 2010 from the ONS death registration database, linked these data with area level information on deprivation and care-home bed capacity, and analyzed the data statistically. Over the 10-year study period, 35,867 centenarians (mainly women, average age 101 years) died in England. The annual number of centenarian deaths increased from 2,823 in 2001 to 4,393 in 2010. Overall, three-quarters of centenarian death certificates stated “old age” as the cause of death. About a quarter of centenarians died in the hospital, a quarter died in a nursing home, and a third died in a care home without nursing; only one in ten centenarians died at home. The proportion of deaths in a nursing home increased slightly over the study period but there was little change in the number of hospital deaths. Compared with younger age groups (80–84 year olds), centenarians were more likely to die from pneumonia and “old age” and less likely to die from cancer and heart disease. Among centenarians, dying in the hospital was more likely to be reported to be associated with pneumonia or heart disease than with dementia; death in the hospital was also associated with having four or more contributing causes of death and with living in a deprived area. Finally, living in an area with a higher care-home bed capacity was associated with a lower risk of dying in the hospital.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings suggest that many centenarians have outlived death from the chronic diseases that are the common causes of death among younger groups of elderly people and that dying in the hospital is often associated with pneumonia. Overall, these findings suggest that centenarians are a group of people living with a risk of death from increasing frailty that is exacerbated by acute lung infection. The accuracy of these findings is likely to be affected by the quality of UK death certification data. Although this is generally high, the strength of some of the reported associations may be affected, for example, by the tendency of clinicians to record the cause of death in the very elderly as “old age” to provide some comfort to surviving relatives. Importantly, however, these findings suggest that care-home capacity and the provision of anticipatory care should be increased in England (and possibly in other countries) to ensure that more of the growing number of centenarians can end their long lives outside hospital.
Additional Information
Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at
The US National Institute on Aging provides information about healthy aging, including information on longevity (in English and Spanish)
The National End of Life Care Intelligence Network, England is a government organization that gathers data on care provided to adults approaching the end of life to improve service quality and productivity
The Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance promotes universal access to affordable palliative care through the support of regional and national palliative care organizations
The non-for-profit organization AgeUK provides information about all aspects of aging
Wikipedia has a page on centenarians (note that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages)
The International Longevity Centre-UK is an independent, non-partisan think tank dedicated to addressing issues of longevity, ageing and population; its “Living Beyond 100” report examines the research base on centenarians and calls for policy to reflect the ongoing UK increase in extreme longevity
This study is part of GUIDE_Care, a project initiated by the Cicely Saunders Institute to investigate patterns in place of death and the factors that affect these patterns
PMCID: PMC4043499  PMID: 24892645
13.  Perceived Role of the Journal Clubs in Teaching Critical Appraisal Skills: A Survey of Surgical Trainees in Nigeria 
Critical appraisal skills allow surgeons to evaluate the literature in an objective and structured manner, with emphasis on the validity of the evidence. The development of skills in critical acquisition and appraisal of the literature is crucial to delivering quality surgical care. It is also widely accepted that journal clubs are a time-honored educational paradigm for teaching and development of critical appraisal skills. The aim of this study is to determine the perceived role of journal clubs in teaching critical appraisal skills amongst the surgical trainees in Nigeria.
Materials and Methods:
The West African College of Surgeons and the National Postgraduate College of Nigeria have mandated that all residency programs teach and assess the ability to develop critical appraisal skills when reviewing the scientific literature. Residents at the revision course of the West African College of Surgeons in September 2012 evaluated the role of journal clubs in teaching critical appraisal skills using a 17-item questionnaire. The questionnaire addressed four areas: Format, teaching and development of critical appraisal s kills, and evaluation.
Most of the journal clubs meet weekly [39 (59%)] or monthly [25 (38%)]. Thirty-nine residents (59%) perceived the teaching model employed in the development of critical appraisal skills in their institutions was best characterized by “iscussion/summary by consultants” and “emphasis on formal suggestion for improvement in research.” Rating the importance of development of critical appraisal skills to the objectives of the residency program and practice of evidence-based medicine, majority of the residents [65 (98%)] felt it was “very important.” The commonest form of feedback was verbal from the consultants and residents [50 (76%)].
The perceived importance of journal clubs to the development of critical appraisal skills was rated as very important by the residents. However, residents indicated a need for a formal evaluation of the journal clubs. It is our hope that the results of this survey will encourage postgraduate coordinators to evaluate the quality of their journal clubs in the development of skills in critical appraisal of the literature.
PMCID: PMC4141447  PMID: 25191095
Critical appraisal skills; evaluation; journal club; literature; research; surgical trainees
14.  The CARE (CAse REport) guidelines and the standardization of case reports 
Case reports comprise the core of Journal of Medical Case Reports, are a time-honored tradition firmly established within the medical literature, and represent a growing importance of valuable clinical medical information in our modern information-flowing times. While there is already a body of published literature on how and when to write a case report and both Journal of Medical Case Reports and BioMed Central make known their own criteria, case report quality across all of the medical literature is still variable. Additionally, although health reporting agencies do have standardization guidelines for other aspects of health-care reporting, there has never been an organizational body responsible for international standardization of how to write a case report. With the newly-published CARE (CAse REport) guidelines, Gagnier and colleagues hope to change this. This editorial serves as a brief introduction to the CARE guidelines and briefly examines the proposed standardization of case reports. We invite feedback on the CARE guidelines from all of our readers and encourage their trial run implementation by our own case report authors.
PMCID: PMC4219182  PMID: 24283496
The purpose of this study was to review institutional statistics provided in dean's letters and determine the percentage of honors awarded by institution and clerkship specialty.
Institutional and clerkship aggregate data were compiled from a review of dean's letters from 80 United States medical schools. The percentage of honors awarded during 3rd year clerkships during 2005 were collected for analysis. Across clerkship specialties, there were no statistically significant differences between the mean percentage of honors given by the medical schools examined with Internal Medicine (27.6%) the low and Psychiatry (33.5%) the high. However, inter-institutional variability observed within each clerkship was high, with surgery clerkship percentage of honors ranging from 2% to 75% of the students. This suggests some schools may be more lenient and other more stringent in awarding honors to their students. This inter-institutional variability makes it difficult to compare honors received by students from different medical schools and weakens the receipt of honors as a primary tool for evaluating potential incoming residents.
PMCID: PMC2723699  PMID: 19742092
16.  Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates? 
PLoS ONE  2015;10(3):e0119892.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates.
All SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided.
129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.
There is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF.
PMCID: PMC4361663  PMID: 25775455
17.  What's so special about Osler? 
Sir William Osler was an outstanding figure in American and British Medicine during the early years of this century. Over fifty years after his death, his name is still remembered and honored, whereas other leaders who were equally important in the eyes of their contemporaries have been relegated to the realm of history. This brief review attempts to discover what special qualities have kept Osler's memory vivid. No single characteristic of his skill, science, or personality seems in itself to explain his continuing reputation. Rather, a combination of his eminence in several different medical schools, his presence at a time of revolution in medical teaching and thought, his authorship of one of the most successful medical textbooks, and an enthusiastic claque of ex-students and colleagues seem to have combined to maintain his memory as a leader of medicine.
PMCID: PMC2595874  PMID: 6996343
18.  Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2012 
There were 90 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2012, which is an 8% increase in the number of articles since 2011. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The editors are delighted to report that the 2011 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2012) has risen to 4.44, up from 3.72 for 2010 (as published in June 2011), a 20% increase. The 2011 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2009 and 2010 were cited on average 4.44 times in 2011. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is approximately 25%, and has been falling as the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality manuscripts to JCMR for publication.
PMCID: PMC3847143  PMID: 24006874
19.  Spa Treatment (Balneotherapy) for Fibromyalgia—A Qualitative-Narrative Review and a Historical Perspective 
Aim. To perform a narrative review of spa therapy for management of the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), evaluating this traditional time-honored form of therapy in a historical perspective. Methods. Medline was searched using the terms “Spa therapy,” “Balneotherapy,” and “Fibromyalgia” between 1990 (year of ACR fibromyalgia criteria publication) and April 2013. The Cochrane database was also searched. Publications relating to the implementation of spa therapy and related practices over the centuries were identified through references, searched, and reviewed. Results. Reports of balneotherapy were described from diverse locations throughout Europe and Asia, and various forms of water-related therapy have been incorporated for many musculoskeletal indications. In the management of FMS, spa therapy has generally been shown to be well accepted and moderately effective for symptom reduction. Conclusion. While achieving high-quality evidence-based conclusions is difficult for complex natural therapies such as spa therapy, the existing evidence indicates a positive effect in management of FMS. In view of the long history of this modality in the management of rheumatic pain as well as the inherent difficulties related to pharmacological treatment, the role of spa therapy should currently be recognized as part of a therapeutic program for FMS.
PMCID: PMC3747489  PMID: 23983795
20.  Effectiveness of a quality improvement curriculum for medical students 
Medical Education Online  2015;20:10.3402/meo.v20.27133.
As health systems find ways to improve quality of care, medical training programs are finding opportunities to prepare learners on principles of quality improvement (QI). The impact of QI curricula for medical students as measured by student learning is not well delineated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a QI curriculum for senior medical students as measured by student knowledge and skills.
This study was an observational study that involved a self-assessment and post-test Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool (QIKAT) for intervention and control students. A QI curriculum consisting of online modules, live discussions, independent readings and reflective writing, and participation in a mentored QI project was offered to fourth-year medical students completing an honor's elective (intervention group). Senior medical students who received the standard QI curriculum only were recruited as controls.
A total of 22 intervention students and 12 control students completed the self-assessment and QIKAT. At baseline, there was no difference between groups in self-reported prior exposure to QI principles. Students in the intervention group reported more comfort with their skills in QI overall and in 9 of the 12 domains (p<0.05). Additionally, intervention students performed better in each of the three case scenarios (p<0.01).
A brief QI curriculum for senior medical students results in improved comfort and knowledge with QI principles. The strengths of our curriculum include effective use of classroom time and faculty mentorship with reliance on pre-existing online modules and written resources. Additionally, the curriculum is easily expandable to larger groups of students and transferable to other institutions.
PMCID: PMC4426288  PMID: 25960052
medical education-systems-based practice; medical education-practice-based learning; quality improvement
21.  The fate of abstracts presented at Turkish national radiology congresses in 2010–2012 
This study aims to evaluate the analysis and publication rates of abstracts presented at the Turkish National Radiology meetings in 2010–2012.
Abstracts presented in the national radiology meetings of 2010, 2011, and 2012 were included in the study. The presentations were classified according to presentation type (oral or poster presentations), study type, study design, imaged organ or body systems, imaging modalities, time interval between the presentation and the publication date, and the journal in which the article was published. The conversion rate of presentations into full-text articles in peer-reviewed journals were surveyed through PubMed. The time from presentation in the meetings to publication was determined. The distribution of journals was also demonstrated.
The total number of presentations submitted in three national radiology meetings was 3,192. The publication rate was 11% for the 2010 meeting, 8.2% for the 2011 meeting, and 9.6% for the 2012 meeting. A total of 300 papers were published, with an average of 15 months (range, 0–42 months) between presentation and final publication. The first three refereed international journals with the most number of papers derived from these meetings were Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinical Imaging, and European Journal of Radiology.
The overall publication rate of scientific abstracts from Turkey was lower than those from overseas countries. Encouraging the authors to conduct higher-quality research would raise the publication rate as well as improve the quality and success of our scientific meetings.
PMCID: PMC4498427  PMID: 26133322
Annals of surgery  2012;256(1):10-15.
Surgeons may be reluctant to withdraw postoperative life support after a poor outcome.
A cross-sectional random sample U.S. mail survey of 2100 surgeons who routinely perform high-risk operations. We used a hypothetical vignette of a specialty-specific operation complicated by a hemiplegic stroke and respiratory failure. On postoperative day 7 the patient and family request withdrawal of life-supporting therapy. We experimentally modified the timing and role of surgeon error to assess their influence on surgeons’ willingness to withdraw life-supporting care.
The adjusted response rate was 56%. Sixty-three percent of respondents would not honor the request to withdraw life-supporting treatment. Willingness to withdraw life-support was significantly lower in the setting of surgeon error (33% vs. 41%, p<0.008) and elective operations rather than emergency cases (33% vs. 41%, P=0.01). After adjustment for specialty, years of experience, geographic region, and gender, odds of withdrawing life-supporting therapy were significantly greater in cases where the outcome was not explicitly from error during an emergency operation as compared to iatrogenic injury in elective cases (odds ratio 1.95, 95% confidence intervals 1.26–3.01). Surgeons who did not withdraw life-support were significantly more likely to report the importance of optimism regarding prognosis (79 vs. 62%, p<0.0001) and concern the patient could not accurately predict future quality of life (80 vs. 68%, p<0.0001).
Surgeons are more reluctant to withdraw postoperative life-supporting therapy for patients with complications from surgeon error in the elective setting. This may also be influenced by personal optimism and a belief that patients are unable to predict the value of future health states.
PMCID: PMC3621715  PMID: 22584696
23.  Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact 
BMC Medicine  2012;10:73.
In the past few years there has been an ongoing debate as to whether the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing would damage the peer review system and put the quality of scientific journal publishing at risk. Our aim was to inform this debate by comparing the scientific impact of OA journals with subscription journals, controlling for journal age, the country of the publisher, discipline and (for OA publishers) their business model.
The 2-year impact factors (the average number of citations to the articles in a journal) were used as a proxy for scientific impact. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was used to identify OA journals as well as their business model. Journal age and discipline were obtained from the Ulrich's periodicals directory. Comparisons were performed on the journal level as well as on the article level where the results were weighted by the number of articles published in a journal. A total of 610 OA journals were compared with 7,609 subscription journals using Web of Science citation data while an overlapping set of 1,327 OA journals were compared with 11,124 subscription journals using Scopus data.
Overall, average citation rates, both unweighted and weighted for the number of articles per journal, were about 30% higher for subscription journals. However, after controlling for discipline (medicine and health versus other), age of the journal (three time periods) and the location of the publisher (four largest publishing countries versus other countries) the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories except for journals that had been launched prior to 1996. OA journals that fund publishing with article processing charges (APCs) are on average cited more than other OA journals. In medicine and health, OA journals founded in the last 10 years are receiving about as many citations as subscription journals launched during the same period.
Our results indicate that OA journals indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus are approaching the same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals, particularly in biomedicine and for journals funded by article processing charges.
PMCID: PMC3398850  PMID: 22805105
impact; open access; peer review; scientific publishing
24.  Reporting and Methods in Clinical Prediction Research: A Systematic Review 
PLoS Medicine  2012;9(5):e1001221.
Walter Bouwmeester and colleagues investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies in 2008, in six high-impact general medical journals, and found that the majority of prediction studies do not follow current methodological recommendations.
We investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies, focusing on aims, designs, participant selection, outcomes, predictors, statistical power, statistical methods, and predictive performance measures.
Methods and Findings
We used a full hand search to identify all prediction studies published in 2008 in six high impact general medical journals. We developed a comprehensive item list to systematically score conduct and reporting of the studies, based on recent recommendations for prediction research. Two reviewers independently scored the studies. We retrieved 71 papers for full text review: 51 were predictor finding studies, 14 were prediction model development studies, three addressed an external validation of a previously developed model, and three reported on a model's impact on participant outcome. Study design was unclear in 15% of studies, and a prospective cohort was used in most studies (60%). Descriptions of the participants and definitions of predictor and outcome were generally good. Despite many recommendations against doing so, continuous predictors were often dichotomized (32% of studies). The number of events per predictor as a measure of statistical power could not be determined in 67% of the studies; of the remainder, 53% had fewer than the commonly recommended value of ten events per predictor. Methods for a priori selection of candidate predictors were described in most studies (68%). A substantial number of studies relied on a p-value cut-off of p<0.05 to select predictors in the multivariable analyses (29%). Predictive model performance measures, i.e., calibration and discrimination, were reported in 12% and 27% of studies, respectively.
The majority of prediction studies in high impact journals do not follow current methodological recommendations, limiting their reliability and applicability.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
There are often times in our lives when we would like to be able to predict the future. Is the stock market going to go up, for example, or will it rain tomorrow? Being able predict future health is also important, both to patients and to physicians, and there is an increasing body of published clinical “prediction research.” Diagnostic prediction research investigates the ability of variables or test results to predict the presence or absence of a specific diagnosis. So, for example, one recent study compared the ability of two imaging techniques to diagnose pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lungs). Prognostic prediction research investigates the ability of various markers to predict future outcomes such as the risk of a heart attack. Both types of prediction research can investigate the predictive properties of patient characteristics, single variables, tests, or markers, or combinations of variables, tests, or markers (multivariable studies). Both types of prediction research can include also studies that build multivariable prediction models to guide patient management (model development), or that test the performance of models (validation), or that quantify the effect of using a prediction model on patient and physician behaviors and outcomes (impact assessment).
Why Was This Study Done?
With the increase in prediction research, there is an increased interest in the methodology of this type of research because poorly done or poorly reported prediction research is likely to have limited reliability and applicability and will, therefore, be of little use in patient management. In this systematic review, the researchers investigate the reporting and methods of prediction studies by examining the aims, design, participant selection, definition and measurement of outcomes and candidate predictors, statistical power and analyses, and performance measures included in multivariable prediction research articles published in 2008 in several general medical journals. In a systematic review, researchers identify all the studies undertaken on a given topic using a predefined set of criteria and systematically analyze the reported methods and results of these studies.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified all the multivariable prediction studies meeting their predefined criteria that were published in 2008 in six high impact general medical journals by browsing through all the issues of the journals (a hand search). They then scored the methods and reporting of each study using a comprehensive item list based on recent recommendations for the conduct of prediction research (for example, the reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies—the REMARK guidelines). Of 71 retrieved studies, 51 were predictor finding studies, 14 were prediction model development studies, three externally validated an existing model, and three reported on a model's impact on participant outcome. Study design, participant selection, definitions of outcomes and predictors, and predictor selection were generally well reported, but other methodological and reporting aspects of the studies were suboptimal. For example, despite many recommendations, continuous predictors were often dichotomized. That is, rather than using the measured value of a variable in a prediction model (for example, blood pressure in a cardiovascular disease prediction model), measurements were frequently assigned to two broad categories. Similarly, many of the studies failed to adequately estimate the sample size needed to minimize bias in predictor effects, and few of the model development papers quantified and validated the proposed model's predictive performance.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that, in 2008, most of the prediction research published in high impact general medical journals failed to follow current guidelines for the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction studies. Because the studies examined here were published in high impact medical journals, they are likely to be representative of the higher quality studies published in 2008. However, reporting standards may have improved since 2008, and the conduct of prediction research may actually be better than this analysis suggests because the length restrictions that are often applied to journal articles may account for some of reporting omissions. Nevertheless, despite some encouraging findings, the researchers conclude that the poor reporting and poor methods they found in many published prediction studies is a cause for concern and is likely to limit the reliability and applicability of this type of clinical research.
Additional Information
Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at
The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that seeks to improve the reliability and value of medical research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting of research studies; its website includes information on a wide range of reporting guidelines including the REMARK recommendations (in English and Spanish)
A video of a presentation by Doug Altman, one of the researchers of this study, on improving the reporting standards of the medical evidence base, is available
The Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group provides additional information on the methodology of prognostic research
PMCID: PMC3358324  PMID: 22629234
25.  Physician perspectives and compliance with patient advance directives: the role external factors play on physician decision making 
BMC Medical Ethics  2012;13:31.
Following passage of the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990, health care institutions that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding are required to inform patients of their right to make their health care preferences known through execution of a living will and/or to appoint a surrogate-decision maker. We evaluated the impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physicians’ decisions to honor or forgo previously established advance directives (ADs). In addition, physician views regarding legal risk, patients’ ability to comprehend complexities involved with their care, and impact of medical costs related to end-of-life care decisions were explored.
Attendees of two Mayo Clinic continuing medical education courses were surveyed. Three scenarios based in part on previously court-litigated matters assessed impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physician compliance with patient-articulated wishes regarding resuscitation. General questions measured respondents’ perception of legal risk, concerns over patient knowledge of idiosyncrasies involved with their care, and impact medical costs may have on compliance with patient preferences. Responses indicating strength of agreement or disagreement with statements were treated as ordinal data and analyzed using the Cochran Armitage trend test.
Three hundred eighty-eight of 951 surveys were completed (41% response rate). Eighty percent reported they were likely to honor a patient’s AD despite its 5 year age. Fewer than half (41%) would honor the AD of a patient in ventricular fibrillation who had expressed a desire to “pass away in peace.” Few (17%) would forgo an AD following a family’s request for continued resuscitative treatment. A majority (52%) considered risk of liability to be lower when maintaining someone alive against their wishes than mistakenly failing to provide resuscitative efforts. A large percentage (74%) disagreed that patients could not appreciate complexities surrounding their care while 69% agreed that costs should never impact a physician’s decision as to whether to comply with a patient’s AD.
Our findings highlight the impact, albeit small, external factors have on physician AD compliance. Most respondents based their decision on the clinical situation at hand and interpretation of the patient’s initial wishes and preferences expressed by the AD.
PMCID: PMC3528447  PMID: 23171364
Advance directive; Physician decision making; Patient preference

Results 1-25 (1476030)