Scientific writing: a randomized controlled trial comparing standard and on-line instruction.

BACKGROUND: Writing plays a central role in the communication of scientific ideas and is therefore a key aspect in researcher education, ultimately determining the success and long-term sustainability of their careers. Despite the growing popularity of e-learning, we are not aware of any existing study comparing on-line vs. traditional classroom-based methods for teaching scientific writing. METHODS: Forty eight participants from a medical, nursing and physiotherapy background from US and Brazil were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 24 per group): An on-line writing workshop group (on-line group), in which participants used virtual communication, google docs and standard writing templates, and a standard writing guidance training (standard group) where participants received standard instruction without the aid of virtual communication and writing templates. Two outcomes, manuscript quality was assessed using the scores obtained in Six subgroup analysis scale as the primary outcome measure, and satisfaction scores with Likert scale were evaluated. To control for observer variability, inter-observer reliability was assessed using Fleiss's kappa. A post-hoc analysis comparing rates of communication between mentors and participants was performed. Nonparametric tests were used to assess intervention efficacy. RESULTS: Excellent inter-observer reliability among three reviewers was found, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) agreement = 0.931882 and ICC consistency = 0.932485. On-line group had better overall manuscript quality (p = 0.0017, SSQSavg score 75.3 +/- 14.21, ranging from 37 to 94) compared to the standard group (47.27 +/- 14.64, ranging from 20 to 72). Participant satisfaction was higher in the on-line group (4.3 +/- 0.73) compared to the standard group (3.09 +/- 1.11) (p = 0.001). The standard group also had fewer communication events compared to the on-line group (0.91 +/- 0.81 vs. 2.05 +/- 1.23; p = 0.0219). CONCLUSION: Our protocol for on-line scientific writing instruction is better than standard face-to-face instruction in terms of writing quality and student satisfaction. Future studies should evaluate the protocol efficacy in larger longitudinal cohorts involving participants from different languages.

Distribution of HPV genotypes in cervical intraepithelial lesions and cervical cancer in Tanzanian women.

BACKGROUND: Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is associated with uterine cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancers (ICC). Approximately 80% of ICC cases are diagnosed in under-developed countries. Vaccine development relies on knowledge of HPV genotypes characteristic of LSIL, HSIL and cancer; however, these genotypes remain poorly characterized in many African countries. To contribute to the characterization of HPV genotypes in Northeastern Tanzania, we recruited 215 women from the Reproductive Health Clinic at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre. Cervical scrapes and biopsies were obtained for cytology and HPV DNA detection. RESULTS: 79 out of 215 (36.7%) enrolled participants tested positive for HPV DNA, with a large proportion being multiple infections (74%). The prevalence of HPV infection increased with lesion grade (14% in controls, 67% in CIN1 cases and 88% in CIN2-3). Among ICC cases, 89% had detectable HPV. Overall, 31 HPV genotypes were detected; the three most common HPV genotypes among ICC were HPV16, 35 and 45. In addition to these genotypes, co-infection with HPV18, 31, 33, 52, 58, 68 and 82 was found in 91% of ICC. Among women with CIN2-3, HPV53, 58 and 84/83 were the most common. HPV35, 45, 53/58/59 were the most common among CIN1 cases. CONCLUSIONS: In women with no evidence of cytological abnormalities, the most prevalent genotypes were HPV58 with HPV16, 35, 52, 66 and 73 occurring equally. Although numerical constraints limit inference, findings that 91% of ICC harbor only a small number of HPV genotypes suggests that prevention efforts including vaccine development or adjuvant screening should focus on these genotypes.