Analysis of the study design and manuscript deficiencies in research articles submitted to Emergency Medicine

Objective: To describe and analyse the study design and manuscript deficiencies in original research articles submitted to Emergency Medicine. Methods: This was a retrospective, analytical study. Articles were enrolled if the reports of the Section Editor and two reviewers were available. Data were extracted from these reports only. Outcome measures were the mean number and nature of the deficiencies and the mean reviewers’ assessment score. Results: Fifty-seven articles were evaluated (28 accepted for publication, 19 rejected, 10 pending revision). The mean (± SD) number of deficiencies was 18.1 ± 6.9, 16.4 ± 6.5 and 18.4 ± 6.7 for all articles, articles accepted for publication and articles rejected, respectively (P = 0.31 between accepted and rejected articles). The mean assessment scores (0–10) were 5.5 ± 1.5, 5.9 ± 1.5 and 4.7 ± 1.4 for all articles, articles accepted for publication and articles rejected, respectively. Accepted articles had a significantly higher assessment score than rejected articles (P = 0.006). For each group, there was a negative correlation between the number of deficiencies and the mean assessment score (P > 0.05). Significantly more rejected articles ‘… did not further our knowledge’ (P = 0.0014) and ‘… did not describe background information adequately’ (P = 0.049). Many rejected articles had ‘… findings that were not clinically or socially significant’ (P = 0.07). Common deficiencies among all articles included ambiguity of the methods (77%) and results (68%), conclusions not warranted by the data (72%), poor referencing (56%), inadequate study design description (51%), unclear tables (49%), an overly long discussion (49%), limitations of the study not described (51%), inadequate definition of terms (49%) and subject selection bias (40%). Conclusions: Researchers should undertake studies that are likely to further our knowledge and be clinically or socially significant. Deficiencies in manuscript preparation are more frequent than mistakes in study design and execution. Specific training or assistance in manuscript preparation is indicated.

Brain natriuretic peptide: Disease marker or more in cardiovascular medicine?

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) is predominantly a cardiac ventricular hormone that promotes natriuresis and diuresis, inhibits the renin-anglotensin-aldosterone axis, and is a vasodilator. Plasma BNP levels are raised in essential hypertension, and more so in left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and heart failure. Plasma BNP levels are also elevated in ischemic heart disease. Attempts have been made to use plasma BNP levels as a marker of LV dysfunction, but these have shown that plasma BNP levels are probably not sensitive enough to replace echocardiography in the diagnosis of LV dysfunction. Pericardial BNP or N-BNP may be more suitable markers of LV dysfunction. Plasma BNP levels are also elevated in right ventricular dysfunction, pregnancy-induced hypertension, aortic stenosis, age, subarachnoid hemorrhage, cardiac allograft rejection and cavopulmonary connection, and BNP may have an important pathophysiological role in some or all of these conditions. Clinical trials have demonstrated the natriuretic, diuretic and vasodilator effects, as well as inhibitory effects on renin and aldosterone of infused synthetic human BNP (nesiritide) in healthy humans. BNP infusion improves LV function in patients with congestive heart failure via a vasodilating and a prominent natriuretic effect. BNP infusion is useful for the treatment of decompensated congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization. The clinical potential of BNP is limited as it is a peptide and requires infusion. Drugs that modify the effects of BNP are furthering our understanding of the pathophysiological role and clinical potential of BNP. Increasing the effects of BNP may be a useful therapeutic approach in heart failure involving LV dysfunction. The levels of plasma BNP are increased by blockers, cardiac glycosides and vasopeptidase inhibitors, and this may contribute to the usefulness of these agents in heart failure. (C) 2001 Prous Science. All rights reserved.

Impact of malocclusion and orthognathic reconstruction surgery on resonance and articulatory function: an examination of variability in five cases

Articulatory patterns and nasal resonance were assessed before and 6 months after orthognathic reconstruction surgery in five patients with dentofacial deformities. Perceptual and physiological assessments showed disorders of nasality and articulatory function preoperatively, two patients being hyponasal, and one hypernasal. Four patients had mild articulatory deficits, and four had reduced maximal lip or tongue pressures. Operation resulted in different patterns of change. Nasality deteriorated in three patients and articulatory precision and intelligibility improved in only one patient and showed no change in the other four. Operation improved interlabial pressures in three patients, while its impact on tongue pressures varied, being improved in one case, deteriorating in one, and remaining unchanged in the other three. The variability in the results highlights the need for routine assessment of speech and resonance before and after orthognathic reconstruction. (C) 2002 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Whither our Art? Clinical Wisdom & Evidence-based Medicine

The relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical judgement is the subject of conceptual and practical dispute. For example, EBM and clinical guidelines are seen to increasingly dominate medical decision-making at the expense of other, human elements, and to threaten the art of medicine. Clinical wisdom always remains open to question. We want to know why particular beliefs are held, and the epistemological status of claims based in wisdom or experience. The paper critically appraises a number of claims and distinctions, and attempts to clarify the connections between EBM, clinical experience and judgement, and the objective and evaluative categories of medicine. I conclude that to demystify clinical wisdom is not to devalue it. EBM ought not be conceived as needing to be limited or balanced by clinical wisdom, since if its language is translatable into terms comprehensible and applicable to individuals, it helps constitute clinical wisdom. Failure to appreciate this constitutive relation will help perpetuate medical paternalism and delay the adoption of properly evidence-based practice, which would be both unethical and unwise.