国外和国内医学期刊的不同之处课件

1、国外和国内医学期刊的 不同之处照日格图中华医学杂志英文版(Chin Med J) 总编辑中国医学论坛报 理事会理事、顾问、前总编辑美国新英格兰医学杂志(N Engl J Med) 编委中华儿科杂志 副总编辑欧洲临床研究杂志(Eur J Clin Invest) 编委 国外的和国内的医学期刊有许多不同国外不少期刊历史长、经验丰富、办刊质量高、刊登高质量高水平医学论文多、及时反映医学科学研究的进展、收录到国际大型科学文献数据库的多、高影响因子的期刊多。刊名创刊年N Engl J Med1812Lancet1823BMJ1840JAMA1883Arch Intern Med1908Ann Inter

2、n Med1927Chest 1935Chin Med J 1887国外，特别是西方国家，以及澳大利亚、新西兰和日本的医学期刊，收录到SCI和Medline等大型数据库的很多。我国医学期刊，近几年已有20余部被SCI收录。2007年我国(包括港澳)收录到Medline的期刊87部。收录到SCI的我国内地医学及相关学科期刊(原有) Journal Titles Impact factorChinese Medical Journal (中华医学杂志 英文版) 0.858Acta Pharmacol Sin (中国药理学报) 1.397Cell Res (细胞研究) 3.426Acta Bioch

3、im Biophys Sin (中国生物化学生物物理学报) 0.931Asian J Androl (亚洲男性学) 1.737Fungal Diversity (真菌多样性) 2.297Science in China Series C, Life Sciences 0.533收录到SCI的我国内地医学及相关学科期刊(新增，临床医学)2.0920.3650.524收录到SCI的我国内地医学及相关学科期刊(新增，基础和综合)审稿方面的不同 国外很多期刊对审稿工作和审稿人的要求很高、很严格。 要求作到：公平、公正、严格遵守时间要求，保密，有高度负责的精神，认真进行审稿。 有利益冲突时及时向编辑部声

4、明，放弃审阅稿件。审稿的方式盲化 单盲 (目前比较多见) 双盲完全公开对稿件的总体评价(打分) 有些期刊请审稿人对稿件的创新性、科学性、实用价值等方面用评分的方法作出评价。 多数期刊要求审稿人在写审稿意见时，给编辑部和作者分别写出参考意见，不能混淆。不能将给编辑的意见，特别是关于稿件取舍的意见，写入给作者的意见框内(国内有些审稿人常这样作，这不妥)。审稿意见：多数审稿人的审稿意见十分详细、具体。这些都对作者以及其他有关人员有重要的参考价值。一般国外期刊的审稿意见由以下部分组成：1、对研究内容的概括，即主要目的和主要结果2、研究的选题、设计，或其他方面的主要问题3、文章的结构、表述、语言等方面存

5、在的问题4、对稿件的处理意见Reviewer: 1In this article, the authors present the data on a randomized but not blinded study of oseltamivir, a Chinese herbal combination (CHC), a combination of the two, or placebo in treatment of . The authors found similar clinical outcomes with oseltamivir or the CHC compared to

6、placebo but no benefit of the combination. Despite the fact that this is both an interesting finding and a novel approach, there are significant challenges that must be addressed by the authors - either by providing additional details or by discussing why they were not done. Specifically:1. Introduc

7、tion - some detail about the CHC needs to be included as well as some background data - why was this combination of herbs picked over others (esp since the authors cite other studies of other combinations later)?2. Methods:A. There were a lot of sites involved - was one IRB approval sufficient?B. Ho

8、w, specifically, was the CHC prepared - how was the solution standardized so that there were comparable amounts of active compounds in each dose?C. Why were the individuals hospitalized? This is not typical for influenza studies in high school students with mild disease?D. How were symptom scores an

9、d symptom alleviation defined? Since one of the most important endpoints is symptom alleviation, why was this only done at discharge instead of when the patients felt better?E. Was no virology, other than initial swabbing, performed? Virologic outcomes are a critical component and failure to assess

10、this significantly limits the value of this study.F. I am surprised that you had such a round number for two different sample size calculations.G. Symptom score is not standardized and definitions are also not consistent with prior flu studies making comparisons challenging.3. Results - theres littl

11、e more than what is presented in the abstract - more - including details about changes in symptom scores over time; clearly virology is needed as well.4. Discussion:A. Need to discuss better how this compound was picked and why the simpler compound wasnt assessed? What is felt to be the active ingre

12、dient? Are there studies planned to define this?B. Since the CHC functions with several proposed mechanisms, why do the authors hypothesize that there was no benefit to the combination?C. There are far more limitations than are listedReviewer: 2Summary1. Double-blind method is not used, although it

13、was randomized controlled trial.2. Combination therapy of oseltamivir and other CNS stimulating drugs is potentially harmful and is not recommended as routine therapy for influenza especially otherwise healthy teenagers.3. It is difficult to understand the reasons why you included patients who prese

14、nted more than 48 hours (but within 72 hours) after the onset of symptoms.4. Efficacy primary end point (time to resolution of fever) is not appropriate to evaluate the efficacy of oseltamivir.5. Medication information other than the study drugs was not available except for acetaminophen and antibio

15、tics. Especially NSAIDs and cough medicines affect the outcome but were not described.6. there seems some bias in the degree of fever and time from onset of illness to intervention7. However, proportion of participants with complete recovery at discharge was not significantly different in each study

16、 group compared control group.8. Moreover that of M-MXSGT group (62.4%) is rather lower than control group (69.6%).9. Reported adverse events are extremely few. Is it the real figure?Details1. Double-blind method is not used, although it was randomized controlled trial.This is stated in your discuss

17、ion in the manuscript. Further explanation may be unnecessary.2. Combination therapy of oseltamivir and other CNS stimulating drugs is potentially harmful and is not recommended as routine therapy for influenza especially otherwise healthy teenagers.Teenagers are thought susceptible to serious abnor

18、mal behaviours leading to accidents even with fatal outcome1. . Other neuropsychiatric adverse reactions to oseltamivir including sudden death especially during sleep are reported 1. 1) Hama R.2008b Fatal neuropsychiatric adverse reactions to oseltamivir: case series and overview of causal relations

19、hip. Int J Risk Safety Med: 20: 5-36 11Several animal experiments are also suggesting the causality, especially used in combination with CNS-stimulant such as ephedrine 2, 3 (main ingredient of M-MXSGT is ephedra which is the mixture of ephedrine like substances). 2) Izumi Y, Tokuda K, Odell KA, Zor

20、umski CF, Narahashi T. 2007. Neuroexcitatory actions of Tamiflu and its carboxylate metabolite. Neurosci Lett. 426(1):54-8. Epub 2007 Sep 1. 3) Izumi Y, Tokuda K, ODell K, Zorumski C, Narahashi T. 2008. Synaptic and behavioral interactions of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) with neurostimulants. Hum Exp Toxic

21、ol. 27(12):911-7.3. The reason why you included patients who presented more than 48 hours (but within 72 hours) after the onset of symptoms is not understandable.There has been no proof based on the randomized controlled trials that show the efficacy in reducing time to resolution of symptoms by ose

22、ltamivir if it is given after more than 48 hours from the onset of symptoms. So if they include those presented more than 48 hours after the onset of flu symptoms and claim the treatment efficacy of oseltamivir, it is misleading.4. Efficacy primary end point (time to resolution of fever) is not appr

23、opriate to evaluate the efficacy of oseltamivir.Because unchanged oseltamivir that easily enter the brain through blood brain-barrier (BBB) and has CNS depressing action which lower body temperature 3, 4, decreased time to resolution of fever could easily proved without true efficacy against flu. 4)

24、 Ono H, Nagano Y, Matsunami N, Sugiyama S, Yamamoto S, Tanabe M.2008. Oseltamivir, an anti-influenza virus drug, produces hypothermia in mice. Biol Pharm Bull. 31(4):638-42.5. Medication information other than the study drugs was not available except acetaminophen and antibiotics. Especially NSAIDs

25、and medicines for the improvement of cough affect the outcome 4, 5 but were not described.M-MXSGT has antipyretic action like NSAIDs. it means in the acute phase it decreased body temperature but in the later phase, it disturb the recovery of flu symptoms. This adverse effect may explain lower tende

26、ncy in proportion of full recovery in the M-MXSGT arm, though the fever resolution was faster than control arm.5) Hama R. A/H1N1 flu. NSAIDs and flu. BMJ. 2009 Jun 15;338:b2345. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2345.6. There seems some bias in the degree of fever and time from onset of illness to intervention a) D

27、egree of fever: rather lower in control group: per cent of 39 C: 14.0 % in control arm vs 23.5 % in oseltamivir arm, 21,4 % in M-MXSGT arm and 24.5 % in combination arm. Flu patients with high fever tend to recover faster than those with low fever. b) Time from onset of illness to intervention: rath

28、er shorter in control arm (30 hours) than in the study arms (35, 35, 32 respectively). late presenting may recover earlier, so the baseline factor is more favorable in the study arms than the control arm.7. However, proportion of participants with complete recovery at discharge was not significantly

29、 different in each study group compared control group.Proportions of complete recovery were 69.6 %, 72.5 %, 62.1 and 70.6 % respectively.8. Moreover that of M-MXSGT group (62.4%) is rather lower than control group (69.6%).Considering the favourable baseline factors, this is more noted and seriously

30、considered and discussed.9. Reported adverse events are extremely few. Its unbelievable.In the RCTs of oseltamivir for treatment of seasonal flu done in the western countries or in Japan, percent of participants who had at least one adverse event were report about 40 to 50 %.10. Please refer the pap

31、ers which were published recently on the systematicreview on neuraminidase inhibitor especially on oseltamivir: as bellow:/cgi/content/full/339/dec07_2/b5106/cgi/content/full/339/dec10_2/b5405/cgi/content/full/339/dec08_3/b5351/cgi/content/full/339/dec08_3/b5387/cgi/content/full/339/dec07_2/b5164/cgi/content/full/339/dec07_2/b5248/cgi/content/full/339/dec08_3/b5364 如此全面、详细而具体的审稿意见，对于作者进一步修改稿件，甚至对以后的科研选题和设计，都有极