Systematic review on meta-analysis in British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet and JAMA

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit-ming, Leone Wong
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran Lewis Quinn ◽  
Emily Hughes ◽  
Amol A Verma

Each year, the Canadian Society for Internal Medicine (CSIM) Annual Meeting features a presentation of the “Top 5 Papers” in internal medicine (IM). We reviewed the publications in all major IM journals ( New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, and JAMA Internal Medicine ) between November 2016 and October 2017 to identify 5 papers that we felt were particularly influential and important to practicing clinicians. These articles were all discussed on the free weekly podcast that we produce, The Rounds Table ( http://healthydebate.ca/about-us/the-rounds-table ). This article summarizes these “Top 5” papers.  


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Joe Wileman ◽  

Journals were reviewed between August and December 2010. The journals reviewed include: The lancet, Lancet Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, Heart, Gut, Thorax, Circulation, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), American Journal of Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. The articles chosen are those which have particular relevance to Acute Physicians.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-98
Author(s):  
Phillip Cockrell ◽  

Journals were reviewed between January and April 2011. The journals reviewed include: American Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Gut, Heart, Journal of Hospital Infection, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, Lancet Neurology, New England Journal of Medicine and Thorax. The articles chosen are those which were felt to have particular relevance to Acute Physicians.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 37-60
Author(s):  
René de Jesús Rivera Gutiérrez ◽  
María Ramírez ◽  
Alicia Rodríguez ◽  
Jorge Hernández

Antecedentes: El virus SARS-CoV-2, causante de la Enfermedad por Coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) emergió en Wuhan, China, en diciembre de 2019, y tiene un alcance pandémico en la actualidad. Su fisiopatología, distribución geográfica y características clínicas son objetivo de estudio y análisis continuo, con resultados prometedores e influyentes, pero difíciles de reunir y sintetizar considerando las numerosas fuentes de información y el dinamismo de la curva epidemiológica de esta pandemia. Objetivo: Esta revisión tiene como objetivo sintetizar la literatura actual sobre la pandemia del COVID-19, con el propósito de establecer de forma transparente y concisa la información de origen nacional e internacional disponible, de manera que esta sirva como una fuente confiable de la evidencia publicada.  Diseño: Se utilizaron artículos científicos publicados entre diciembre de 2019 y marzo de 2020, que fueron seleccionados por su relevancia, validez y calidad de contenido, obtenidos a través de revistas científicas como New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet y el British Medical Journal, además de la información proporcionada por instituciones reconocidas a nivel mundial, como lo son la Organización Mundial de la Salud y  el Centro para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades. Conclusiones: La información actual sobre la pandemia del SARS-CoV-2 está renovándose continuamente y se espera que continúe haciéndolo por los próximos meses. Se torna complicado el mantenerse a la vanguardia, por lo cual confiamos en que esta revisión será útil para distintos estudiantes y profesionales de la salud.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-118
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Clayton ◽  

In this article I have reviewed 4 articles of interest to acute physicians from literature covering the period January to May 2013 in the New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association and the Lancet.


BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. e011784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anisa Rowhani-Farid ◽  
Adrian G Barnett

ObjectiveTo quantify data sharing trends and data sharing policy compliance at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by analysing the rate of data sharing practices, and investigate attitudes and examine barriers towards data sharing.DesignObservational study.SettingThe BMJ research archive.Participants160 randomly sampled BMJ research articles from 2009 to 2015, excluding meta-analysis and systematic reviews.Main outcome measuresPercentages of research articles that indicated the availability of their raw data sets in their data sharing statements, and those that easily made their data sets available on request.Results3 articles contained the data in the article. 50 out of 157 (32%) remaining articles indicated the availability of their data sets. 12 used publicly available data and the remaining 38 were sent email requests to access their data sets. Only 1 publicly available data set could be accessed and only 6 out of 38 shared their data via email. So only 7/157 research articles shared their data sets, 4.5% (95% CI 1.8% to 9%). For 21 clinical trials bound by the BMJ data sharing policy, the per cent shared was 24% (8% to 47%).ConclusionsDespite the BMJ's strong data sharing policy, sharing rates are low. Possible explanations for low data sharing rates could be: the wording of the BMJ data sharing policy, which leaves room for individual interpretation and possible loopholes; that our email requests ended up in researchers spam folders; and that researchers are not rewarded for sharing their data. It might be time for a more effective data sharing policy and better incentives for health and medical researchers to share their data.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 336-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. E. Hotham ◽  
A. Malviya

This systematic review examines the current literature regarding surgical techniques for restoring articular cartilage in the hip, from the older microfracture techniques involving perforation to the subchondral bone, to adaptations of this technique using nanofractures and scaffolds. This review discusses the autologous and allograft transfer systems and the autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) technique, as well as a summary of the previously discussed techniques, which could become common practice for restoring articular cartilage, thus reducing the need for total hip arthroplasty. Using the British Medical Journal Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (BMJ GRADE) system and Grade system. Comparison of the studies discussed shows that microfracture has the greatest quantity and quality of research, whereas the newer AMIC technique requires more research, but shows promise. Cite this article: W. E. Hotham, A. Malviya. A systematic review of surgical methods to restore articular cartilage in the hip. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:336–342. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0331.


Author(s):  
Stefan Bittmann

Infantile hemangiomas (IH) are benign forms of endothelial proliferation in the first 8 weeks of life. Leaute-Labreze et al. published the first spontaneous cases of IH treated with beta blockers in 2008 due to their cardiac disease in the New England Journal of Medicine. This was a revolutionary new understanding of treatment in infantile hemangioma (IH). Not only systemic but also topical beta blockers seem to be an effective treatment option for small infantile hemangioma. Efficacy and safety of topical beta blockers in the treatment of infantile hemangioma (IH) were proved in systematic reviews and meta-analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document