1. Zašto je važno znati čitati i napisati znanstveni rad? Pisanje zasnovano na dokazima

3. Znanstveni rad novo znanje prvi puta

4. Izvorni znanstveni članak (=primarna znanstvena publikacija) je prvi objavak rezultata znanstvenog istraživanja koji sadrži dovoljno podataka da drugi znanstvenici (kolege) mogu (1) proučiti dokaze, (2) ponoviti pokuse i (3) procijeniti donesene zaključke. Objavak mora biti dostupan znanstvenoj javnosti u trajnom obliku i bez ograničenja, te dostupan redovitom pretraživanju koji rade glavne (poznate) sekundarne (indeksne) publikacije (Index Medicus, Excerpta Medica, Current Contents,...).

5. Hijerarhijska vrijednost članaka u časopisu 1.N of 1 RCT 2.Sustavni pregled RCT-ja ( i meta-analiza) 3.Randomizirani kontrolirani klinički pokus (RCT) 4.Sustavni pregledi opažajnih istraživanja 5.Opažajno istraživanje (kohortna studija, istraživanje parova, presječno istraživanje) 6.Fiziološka istraživanja 7.Nesustavna klinička opažanja

7. 1665 Journal des Scavans Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

8. A naturalist’s life would be a happy one if he had only to observe and never to write. –Sir Charles Darwin

9. The man of science appears to be the only man who has something to say just now, and the only man who does not know how to say it. –Sir James Barrie

10. Obilježja komunikacije u znanosti jasnoćatočnost jednostavnost razumljivost Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity. –Plato

11. Pisanje zasnovano na dokazima (Evidence-based writing) Zasniva se na istraživanjima iz: kognitivne psihologije grafičkog dizajna i tipografije instrukcijskog dizajna lingvistike istraživanja čitanja retorike

12. Evidence-based writing Gunning Fog Index: mjera čitljivosti pisanoga teksta –Robert Gunning. The Techniques of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Interpretacija: –Lagano čitanje 6-10. –Prosječna osoba čita na razini 9. –Sve iznad 17. razine je teško za studente. Dječje knjige 6-10 Dnevne novine12-14 Medicinski časopisi14-16 Pravni časopisi16-18 Police osiguranja18-20

13. Evidence-based writing Lexical difficulty indeks (Donald Hayes): 87000 riječi na osnovu čestoće uporabe u udžbenicima, romanima, časopisima i encikopedijama (American Heritage Word Frequency Book). 1. pojam: “the”; 10,000. pojam: “whooping”; neuron – 23,595. pojam Majčin govor djetetu Novinski članak Članak u časopisu Nature

14. Evidence-based writing Nature Science LEX score Lex ratings: Nature+35 New Scientist+7 Time+2 US/UK newspapers 0 Ranger Rick-18 TV (prime show)-36 Farmer talking-56 to cows

15. I ntroduction Što sam htio? M ethod Kako sam radio? R esults Što sam dobio? A nd D iscussion Što to znači?

16. NASLOV Why whip egg whites in copper bowls? Nature 1984;308

17. Naslov mora biti razumljiv: čitatelji imaju prethodna iskustva i znanje odgovarajući naslov pomaže stvaranje korisnih asocijacija “Postupak je zapravo jako jednostavan. Prvo se stvari rasporede u različite skupine ovisno o njihovoj vrsti i građi. Naravno, može biti dostatna i jedna skupina ako …” Pranje rublja u perilici

18. SAŽETAK Klasični Strukturirani AimObjective MethodSetting ResultsParticipants ConclusionsDesign Intervention Main outcome measure Results Conclusions

19. SAŽETAK Kao dio rada: – pomaže čitatelju da se odluči čitati rad – usmjeruje čitatelja na istraživački problem Tiskan posebno: – pomaže čitatelju koji odluči potražiti članak – zamjenjuje članak ako članak nije dostupan

20. UVOD Pišite Uvod krećući od općeg, širokog konteksta vašeg rada, recite čitatelju što je već poznato pa onda ono što se još ne zna, koji su problemi, te što ste vi odlučili raditi

21. TVORIVA I POSTUPCI daju informacije koje omogućuju znanstvenicima/čitateljima: – ponavljanje pokusa – procjenu vrijednosti pokusa

22. TVORIVA I POSTUPCI Pediat Res 1972;6:26 Krv za analizu uzeta je od 48 osoba koje smo upoznali s pokusom i koje su pristale na istraživanje (informed and consenting subjects); dob ispitanika bila je od 6 mjeseci do 22 godine.

23. REZULTATI tekst tablice slike

24. Rezultati Slike i tablice bi trebale: Dodati nove podatke Štediti prostor Biti razumljive same za sebe Ne biti pretrpane brojkama ili crnilom

25. REZULTATI

27. Pisati za čitatelja Dođite brzo do glagola duge rečenice nisu nužno nerazumljivije nego kratke dužina nije problem nego složena sintaksa kad pročitamo subjekt rečenice, očekujemo odmah i glagol informacija između subjekta i glagola slabo se zadržava u radnoj memoriji

28. Pisati za čitatelja Pišite “scenarij” - subjekt, aktivni glagoli aktivne rečenice su obično razumljivije od pasivnih, posebice ako govore o ljudima ne mora svaka rečenica biti u aktivnom obliku

29. Grafički prikaz podataka Brojke prikazujte da ih čitatelj može bolje razumjeti ne pišite previše decimalnih brojki napišite i frakciju uz postotak, a samo brojeve za male uzorke budite svjesni da ljudi nemaju dobar pojam o velikim brojevima (>1 000 000)

30. Grafički prikaz podataka Brojke prikazujte da ih čitatelj može bolje razumjeti izbjegavajte rimske brojeve (osim za kranijalne živce, čimbenike zgrušavanja i svjetske ratove) u tablici na lijevu stranu stavite ono što čitatelj već zna ako ne stavite 0 u grafikon, čitatelj može misliti da je rezultat veći nego što jest

31. RASPRAVA Nakon sažimanja rezultata, identificirajte ograničenja i otklone,usporedite ih s drugim nalazima i raspravite teorijske i praktične posljedice vašeg istraživanja; oprezno izvedite zaključke iz opisanih istraživanja i predložite buduća istraživanja, pokažite što je novo i kako se Vaši rezultati uklapaju u šire područje koje ste opisali na početku Uvoda.

32. Obilježja komunikacije u znanosti jasnoćatočnost jednostavnost razumljivost

33. Scientific jargon: From the time immemorial, it has been known that the ingestion of an “apple” (i.e., the pomme fruit of any tree of the genus Malus, said fruit being usually round in shape and red, yellow, or greenish in color) on a diurnal basis will with absolute certainty keep a primary member of the health care establishment absent from one’s local environment.

34. An apple a day keeps doctor away.

35. The Six Honest Serving Men R. Kipling I keep six honest serving men (They taught me all I know): Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who. A survey of the writer’s personal methodology in general inquiry has been carried out, and the results analyzed to determine components of the interrogatory technique. Six distinct forms of question were isolated, as tabulated below. It is claimed that responses evoked by these were responsible for the total quantity of knowledge acquired by the author (3).

36. The basics of writing a paper: Topping and tailing Title: Include design; Don’t try to be clever Abstract: Make it structured even if not in form; Include some numbers, not all References: Keep to the essentials Covering letter: Something very crisp Authorship, acknowledgements, competing interests

37. Don’t select it because of its impact factor Don’t select it because of its “reputation” Select it because of the audience Who will be interested in your paper? –Doctors - all or a particular group –Researcher –Policy makers –Public Find the right journal

38. 90% relevant information is published in 10% of the journals only 10-15% articles from a field are useful half of the articles are never cited half of the journals on library shelves are never opened

39. US National Library of Medicine: gets 24,000 journals per year indexes 4,000 in MEDLINE Science Citation Index (SCI): indexes 5,600 leading journals from different scientific disciplines

40. Peer review processes “Stand at the top of the stairs with a pile of papers and throw them down the stairs. Those that reach the bottom are published.” “Sort the papers into two piles: those to be published and those to be rejected. Then swap them over.”

41. Will editors like your paper? At (big) journals, it is editors, not peer reviewers, who decide on publication General journal editors like papers with general appeal How do (big) journal editors decide?

42. The right study design Exploration of hypotheses: Qualitative research History taking: Case-control study Diagnostic testing: Cross sectional study Treatment experience: Randomized clinical trial Individual trial and error: n of 1 trial Following clinical course: Cohort study Record keeping: Systematic registry based (computer supported) research Individual peer review: Quality of care research/process evaluation

43. How editors triage studies? We like valid studies with messages that will make a difference to patients Fewer than 1% of original studies published in medical journals are valid and relevant to patients

44. Editor’s approach I: Read covering letter But remember it’s a sales pitch

45. Editor’s approach II: Signs of a totally unsuitable paper: Biblical quotations A cure for schizophrenia or cancer Incomprehensible first two paragraphs

46. Editor’s approach III: Title page: Original study or something else? “Unknown” authors regularly produce great work. “Known” authors sometimes produce dreadful papers.

47. Editor’s approach IV: Structured abstract: Does it show what the paper is about and how it is structured? If not, it’s looking bad.

48. Editor’s approach V: Is the question one that we want to know the answer to? Or is the question too –specialist –inconsequential –far removed from patient care or public policy –well known – but lots of things that are well known have no evidence to support them.

49. Editor’s approach VI: Papers with interesting questions and “negative” answers can be important. The research question is more important than the answer. Have the researchers used correct methods to answer the question?

50. Triage: treatment paper If it is an RCT, was it really randomized? If it wasn’t, reject unless you can find a good reason for not randomizing.

51. Triage: diagnosis paper Is the test compared prospectively and blind with a gold standard? Does the test population include patients with the condition, with related conditions that could be confused with the main condition, and people without the condition? Does the paper include information on sensitivity, specificity, etc? If no to any of above the journal will usually reject.

52. Triage: prognosis studies Is there a cohort of patients followed prospectively from when they were first identified with the disease? Are 80% of patients followed up? If the answer to these questions is no, we probably don’t want the paper.

53. Triage: systematic reviews Was a clear question asked? Was a search described? Were quality criteria set? Were studies appraised and discarded? If not to any of these questions, reject.

54. Triage: qualitative research Were qualitative methods appropriate for the question? Is it a “why” or “how” study rather than a “does it work” or “how often” study? Were the methods and the analysis described in detail and justified? If the answer is no to either question, you should probably reject.

55. Triage: questionnaire survey If it reports what people say they do, rather than what they really do, reject Does it tell us something important we probably can’t investigate in any other way? If the response rate is below 55% most journals will almost certainly reject.

56. Triage: economic evaluation Is the underlying methodology valid? For example, an evaluation of treatment should be based on an RCT or systematic review. If not, reject.

57. A a good case must be: –not so common that everybody knows it –nor so rare that it won’t matter if they don’t –a good read. If not, reject. Triage: case report

58. Triage: two sorts of studies editors don’t like Prevalence study –Limited usefulness –Usually can’t generalise beyond the particular population Cost of illness study –Rarely interesting enough –Again hard to generalize

59. Accept Minor revision Major revision Reject