PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology 2018; 01(01): 075-077
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692875
Invited Commentary
Indian Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology

Why Should Clinicians Publish?

Rijo Mathew Choorakuttil
1   Research Action Group of AMMA Education Research Foundation, AMMA Center for Preventive and Diagnostic Medicine, Kochi, Kerala, India
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
18. Juni 2019 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Often, in personal conversations, we hear several reasons including time, resources, and usefulness of published reports and of research itself for the lack of interest by clinicians to publish scientific manuscripts. The number of patients treated is considered a more useful indicator of clinical care acumen than the number of scientific manuscripts published. I argue that publishing a scientific manuscript that results from a research study is an integral part of clinical medicine and that lack of publishing renders clinical care incomplete.

Keywords - research - manuscript - publishing
 

  • References

  • 1 Leon Jr LR, Vargas HI. “Ghost” publications in residency applications from international medical graduates. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208 (03) 483-484 author reply 484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Breathneck CS. The golden heresy of truth. J Ir Coll Phys Surg 1995; 24: 114-121
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Lau J. Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?. BMJ 2001; 322 7291 879-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?. Lancet 2004; 363 9422 1728-1731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet 2001; 29 (03) 306-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Kundu D, Bruckdorfer KR, Ebrahim S. Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence?. Lancet 2004; 363 9422 1724-1727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374 9683 86-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Stuckler D, King L, Robinson H, McKee M. WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis. Lancet 2008; 372 9649 1563-1569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Perel P, Miranda JJ, Ortiz Z, Casas JP. Relation between the global burden of disease and randomized clinical trials conducted in Latin America published in the five leading medical journals. PLoS One 2008; 3 (02) e1696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 2000; 355 9220 2037-2040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ, Watson J, Bland JM. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ 2005; 330 7499 1057-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M, Smidt N, van Rijn JC, Bossuyt PM. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 2006; 174 (04) 469-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Author Services. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/en-in/authors/author-services Accessed July 8, 2017
    Google Scholar