3
Scientific literature is subject to po tential misinterpretatio ns because o f inco nsistencies in re p o rting sta nd a rd s. This issue ha s b e e n a ddre sse d b y thre e impo rta nt pa pe rs who se o b je c tive w a s the imp ro ve me nt o f fina l publicatio n quality via better repo rting standards. These papers are summariz ed belo w.
The first paper, “ Unifo rm requirements fo r manuscripts submitted to bio medical jo urnals” ,1 gives instructio ns to autho rs o n ho w to prepare ma nusc ripts, ra ther tha n to edito rs reg a rding publicatio n style. If autho rs were to prepare their ma nusc rip ts in the style sp e c ifie d in the se requirements, the edito rs o f participating jo urnals wo uld no t find themselves having to return the manuscripts fo r stylistic changes befo re co nsidering them for, the publication process. However, journals may alter accepted manuscripts so as to co nfo rm with the details o f their publicatio n style. Autho rs sending manuscripts to a participating jo urnal sho uld the re fo re no t try to p re p a re the m in accordance with the publication style of that journal, but sho uld fo llo w the Unifo rm Requirements.
The second paper, the Consolidated Standards fo r Repo rting Trials (CO NSO RT) statement,2 gives a checklist and flo w diagram. The checklist co nsists o f 2 1 items mainly pertaining to the metho ds, results and discussio n o f an RCT repo rt, and identifies key
Editorial
Uniform re quire me nts for manuscripts, CONSORT
state me nt and more informative abstracts: thre e fundame ntal
pape rs for improving the quality of me dical publications
Álvaro Nagib Atallah Aldemar Araujo Castro
information necessary for evaluating the internal and external validity o f a repo rt. The flo w diag ram pro vides info rmatio n abo ut the pro gress o f patients thro ugh a 2 -gro up parallel-design RCT, which is perhaps the mo st co mmo nly repo rted type o f trial. Appro priate adjustments wo uld need to be made in repo rts o f trials with larger numbers o f gro ups o r trials using different designs.
The third p a p e r d e a ls w ith struc ture d abstracts, which were designed to permit clinical readers o f medical jo urnals to quickly judge the applicability and validity o f the findings o f an article fo r clinical practice, in acco rdance with co mmo n sense and widely disseminated scientific principles fo r the critical appraisal o f medical literature which ha ve b een tested fo r their educa tio na l va lue. Additio na l purpo se s inc lude g uiding a utho rs to wards summarizing the co ntents o f their articles mo re e xp lic itly, a id ing re vie w e rs o f a rtic le s sub mitte d fo r p ub lic a tio n to re nd e r c ritic a l judgements, and facilitating the use o f electro nic biblio graphic databases. This Jo urnal has been pro viding mo re info rmative abstracts (“ structured abstracts” ) fo r articles o f clinical interest. Structured abstracts fo r o rig inal studies require autho rs to systematically disclo se the o bjective, basic research design, clinical setting, participants, interventio ns (if any), measurements made o n the main o utco me,
Sao Paulo Med J/Rev Paul Med 1999; 117(1):3-4.
REVISTA PA ULISTA DE M EDIC IN A
4
results and co nclusio ns.
The Sã o Pa ulo Medic a l Jo urna l (Revista Pa ulista d e Me d ic ina ) e nd o rse s the unifo rm re q uire me nt fo r ma nusc rip ts, the C O N SO RT statement and mo re info rmative abstracts because o f their hig h relevance to publicatio ns in medical science, and suggests that po tential autho rs sho uld fo llo w them when preparing articles fo r submissio n to any impo rtant medical jo urnal.
REFERENCES
1. Inte rnatio nal Co m m itte e o f Me dical Jo urnal Edito rs. Unifo rm Re -q uire m e nts fo r Manusc rip ts Sub m itte d to Bio m e d ic al Jo urnals. Ann Inte rn Me d 1997;126(1):36-47.
2. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwo o d S, Ho rto n R, Mo her D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stro up DF. Impro ving the quality o f repo rting o f rando mized co ntro lled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276(8):637-9.
3. Haynes RB, Mulro w CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. Mo re in-fo rmative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 1990;113(1):69-76.
