Pain Medicine
Workshop for Reviewers Jerome Schofferman, MD Norman Harden, MD
Goal of Pain Medicine : Communication! • Education and Updating of readership – Ultimate Purpose: better patient care • Information should be useful to readers • Information should be interesting to readers – well communicated • High quality science – best possible science – forms basis for evidence-based practice – Citable!
Goal of Pain Medicine: Communication! • Education of readership – Best information, optimal patient care • Evidence-based reviews • Consider Ethics • Debate – Readers are at least in part dependent on reviewers and editor to ensure quality
The Art and Methods of Reviewing Manuscripts • Reviewers usually chosen because of: – Expertise in the field – Prior reviews • Quality • Response time – Availability – Willingness • Reviewing is an honor – Recognition for expertise and hard work – With honor comes responsibility to review well
Reviewing Manuscripts • Manuscript Review – Not intuitive – Not usually included in training – Learning to review well is empirical • experience • feedback from editor-in-chief • reviews of your own papers
Provenzale and Stanley. AJR 2005
Why Review? • Valuable contribution to body of science • Improves your own writing • Sense of duty – After all, recall someone is reviewing your work • Desire to contribute to the development and maintenance of high journal quality
Reviewer • Wears three hats – author advocate • Treat a manuscript as you would want your own treated
– Advocate for journal and its readers – Guard the quality of the evidence base
Reviewer: Author Advocate • Criticism: goal is to improve manuscript
– constructive • see what the authors may not have not seen • indicate the problems – Suggest how they might be corrected – critical yet objective • may need to examine references • for disputes of fact, reviewer should provide references – balanced – contains no personal bias or offensive comments • review the manuscript, not the authors
Reviewers: Journal advocate • Judge whether the manuscript merits publication • Provide a global recommendation to editor – Editor must be able to discern the reviewer’s thoughts, feelings, and opinion • Reviewer must convey these in an unambiguous manner in comments to the editor -- Reviewer must convey these in a constructive, kind, encouraging manner tot eh authors
Three reasons cited most often for acceptance of a manuscript: 1. Timely and relevant to a current problem (topical) ~advances the science 2. Manuscript is well written, logical and easy to comprehend 3. Study was well designed and had appropriate methodology
Six most common reasons for rejection
1. incomplete or insufficiently described statistics 2. Over interpretation of the results 3. Suboptimal or insufficiently described means of measuring data
Six most common reasons for rejection 4. Sample population that was too small or biased 5. Text difficult to follow; difficulty following the logical flow of the manuscript is the hardest to repair 6. Insufficient problem statement
Evaluating a Manuscript
#1 Quality of Science • Relevance • Readability
• Quality of Science – Type of study • reasonable for research question? – can’t always be high quality RCT »EBM: “best available” research
The more rigorous the design the more valid the conclusions Validity = closeness to the truth
Levels of Evidence* Level
I
Therapy
II
Two or more quality RCTs, available Meta-analysis, systematic reviews Single RCT
III
Case Series, Retrospective studies
IV
Case study
V
Expert opinion, anecdote
* This is one version of many
• Quality of Science – Type of study • reasonable for research question? • methodology clear and reproducible • Results – appropriate use of appropriate statistics – clear and easy to follow – follow-up adequate
Reviewing Manuscript: • Read the manuscript over – Subject • Relevant? • Timely?
– Readability • Good • Acceptable • Poor
Good
Good
Science ±
Poor
Minor Revision? Reject Major Revision ?
Author, Journal, and Reader Advocate
• Many flaws can be corrected and manuscript can be salvaged if the science is good/adequate • Reviewer’s job is to decide if the sum total of these deficits, once corrected, might still allow publication of the manuscript
Grading/Evaluating the Manuscript • Topic……………… ± (25%) – relevance • Manuscript presentation… ± (25%) – readability • Quality of Science……… ± (50%) – type of study – appropriate? – analysis of results
Reviewer’s Role • If the science is poor and/or the relevance low – Explain why, encourage • If the topic is relevant and the science is good but the readability is poor: – Suggest improvements in the manuscript to make it publishable…
Manuscript: Overview The Parts • • • • •
Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion and conclusions
The Goal • In evaluating the parts, the goal is to improve the manuscript – for publication – for submission elsewhere – for future research
Abstract • Should encourage readers to read the whole paper • Should be able to stand alone – Many clinicians only read the abstract – Many researchers reviewing the literature start (and end??) with the abstract Foote M. Chest 2006;129:1375-77 Provenzale and Stanley. AJR 2005
Evaluating the Introduction
Purposes • General – Does it introduce the topic? – Provide concise background and significance – Does it engage the reader?
Evaluating the Introduction • Specific Is there: – Adequate background? • Concise review of pertinent literature –Deficits in current knowledge
» gaps » weaknesses of prior research
Evaluating the Introduction • Specific Is there: – A problem statement (reason to do study) which includes a goal for the study
– Specific Aims – Corroborate prior research – Extend prior research – Improved methodology
• A design to answer the question
Evaluating the Discussion • Are conclusions limited to the data and findings of the current study? – Or do they extend beyond? • Are the results placed in context of prior knowledge – Corroboration of prior findings – Extension of prior findings – New findings – Contrary findings
Evaluating the Discussion • Are the strengths of the study stated? • Are the limitations of the study stated? • Is the clinical significance of the results presented and interpreted? • Are there suggestions for future research?
Thank you for your willingness to review for Pain Medicine!
References • Benos D, Kirk K, Hall J. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol and Education 2003;27:47-52 • Seals D, Tanaka H. Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice reviewers. Adv Physiol and Education 2000;23:52-58 • Provenzale J, Stanley R. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. J Nuclear Med 2006;34:92-99