Literature DB >> 19631820

The role of the national general medical journal: surveys of which journals UK clinicians read to inform their clinical practice.

Teresa H Jones1, Stephen Hanney, Martin J Buxton.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For biomedical research findings to contribute toward health gains they must reach clinicians. Academic journals have historically been considered important information sources. Birken and Parkin found seven journals to most consistently contain the best pediatric evidence and, of these seven, four were general medical journals.
METHODS: We surveyed clinicians in three UK medical specialties (psychiatry, surgery and pediatrics), asking which journals they read and which they considered important to inform their clinical practice.
RESULTS: The readership of general medical journals, in comparison to specialty and sub-specialty journals, is widespread across the three UK medical specialties, although the importance of general medical journals varies widely. The BMJ is the most prominent general medical journal in terms of readership and importance but a dominant specialty or sub-specialty journal was usually more important for most groups. The Lancet is less widely read and less important, although more academics than non-academics consider it important.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, key general medical journals play an important role. Journal availability and cost, particularly in relation to membership for UK clinicians, and the position of academics and non-academics have to be considered in any analysis. Three of the four general medical journals containing the best pediatric evidence were found to be widely read by UK pediatricians and two UK-based general medical journals, the BMJ and The Lancet, were also considered important in our survey. Further investigation of the reasons for the importance of a journal and studies that would allow international comparisons would provide greater input to the discussion.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19631820     DOI: 10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76404-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Clin (Barc)        ISSN: 0025-7753            Impact factor:   1.725


  5 in total

1.  Laid bare: religious intolerance within online commentary about 'bare below the elbows' guidance in professional journals.

Authors:  June Jones; Andrew Shanks
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2013-09

2.  An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.

Authors:  Laure Perrier; M Ryan Kealey; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  An automated approach for ranking journals to help in clinician decision support.

Authors:  Siddhartha R Jonnalagadda; Soheil Moosavinasab; Chinmoy Nath; Dingcheng Li; Christopher G Chute; Hongfang Liu
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2014-11-14

4.  Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Laure Perrier; Nav Persaud; Kevin E Thorpe; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 7.327

5.  Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and implications for outcome integrity: a cross-sectional analysis of trials published in high-impact specialty society journals.

Authors:  Anand D Gopal; Joshua D Wallach; Jenerius A Aminawung; Gregg Gonsalves; Rafael Dal-Ré; Jennifer E Miller; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.