Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Selected Papers www.karger.com
S. KargerMedical and Scientific PublishersBasel . Freiburg . Paris . London . New York . Chennai . New Delhi . Bangkok . Beijing . Shanghai . Tokyo . Kuala Lumpur . Singapore . Sydney
Preface
How to Write a Research PaperCerebrovasc Dis 2004;18:135-138
How to Handle a RejectionCerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:209-212
Suggestions for Reviewing ManuscriptsCerebrovasc Dis 2009;28:243-246
Writing Good AbstractsCerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256-259
How to Prepare and Deliver a Scientific PresentationCerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202-208
The Scientific Manuscript and Presentation:Key Elements of Success
Original Papers241 Prognostic Significance of Angiogenesis in Relation to Ki-67, p-53, p-27, and bcl-2
Expression in Embryonal Tumors
Moschovi, M.; Koultouki, E.; Stefanaki, K.; Sfakianos, G.; Tourkantoni, N.; Prodromou, N.;
Alexiou, G.A. (Athens)
248 Anterolateral Mini Fronto-Orbito-Zygomatic Craniotomy via an Eyebrow Incision in
Pediatrics: Technical Notes and Evaluation
El Shafei, H.I. (Cairo)254 Protective Effects of Edaravone on Experimental Spinal Cord Injury in Rats
Özgiray, E. (Izmir); Serarslan, Y.; Öztürk, O.H.; Altaş, M.; Aras, M.; Söğüt, S. (Hatay);
Yurtseven, T.; Oran, I.; Zileli, M. (Izmir)
261 Surveillance Study of Healthcare-Associated Infections in a Pediatric Neurosurgery
Unit in ItalyRaffaldi, I.; Scolfaro, C.; Pinon, M.; Garazzino, S.; Dalmasso, P.; Calitri, C.; Peretta, P.; Ragazzi, P.;
Gaglini, P.P.; Pretti, P.F.; Vitale, P.; Conio, A.; Tovo, P.-A. (Turin)
266 Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 as an Adjunct for Spine Fusion
in a Pediatric Population
Abd-El-Barr, M.M.; Cox, J.B.; Antonucci, M.U.; Bennett, J.; Murad, G.J.A.; Pincus, D.W.
(Gainesville, Fla.)Case Reports272 Successful Surgical Excision of a Nondysraphic Holodorsal Intramedullary Lipoma
in a 14-Month-Old Child
Kumar, A.; Chandra, P.S.; Bisht, A.; Garg, A.; Mahapatra, A.K.; Sharma, M.C. (New Delhi)
275 Paroxysmal Autonomic Instability with Dystonia in a Child: Rare Manifestation of an
Interpeduncular Tuberculoma
Singh, D.K.; Singh, N. (Lucknow)
(Continued on inside front cover)
IND
IA
N ACADEMY OF
NE
UR
OS
CIE
NC
ES
Highlights in th
is issue:
⚫ The Uncertain Glory of Indian Clin
ical Medicine: A
Case for Institu
tional A
udit of P
ublic
Tertiary Care Hospita
ls
Jayant, A
.⚫ Role of M
atrix Metalloproteinases 2 in Spinal Cord Injury-In
duced Neuropathic Pain
Miranpuri, G
.S.; Schomberg, D.T.; Alrfaei, B.; King, K.C.; Rynearson, B.; Wesley, V.S.; Khan, N.; Obiakor, K.; W
esley, U.V.;
Resnick, D.K.
⚫ Efficacy of A
nti-Epile
ptic Drugs in th
e Treatment o
f Tumor and Its Associated Epile
psy:
An in vitro Perspectiv
e
Kaur, T.; M
anchanda, S.; Saini, V.; Lakhman, S.S.; Kaur, G.
In
tern
atio
nal
nal
1
4
56
2
3
78
V.S. © 2012 MAYO
Editorial
41 Utilization of Statins: Guiding Principles and the
New United States Guidelines
Hennekens, C.H.; Gelb, I.J. (Boca Raton, Fla.)
Editorial Comments
13 Systemic Inflammatory Response following
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Paraskos, J.A. (Worcester, Mass.)
51 Hyperthyroid Atrial Fibrillation: Does It Matter for
Stroke Risk?
Poulin, M.-F.; Doukky, R. (Chicago, Ill.)
Review
62 Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Percutaneous
Coronary Interventions: Pathogenesis, Risk Factors,
Outcome, Prevention and Treatment
Aurelio, A.; Durante, A. (Milan)
Original Research
1 Allitridin Reduces IKr Current by Disrupting the
Trafficking of Human Ether-à-Go-Go-Related Gene
Channels
Li, G.; Cheng, G.; Wu, J.; Ma, S.; Zhang, A.; Han, W.; Sun, C.
(Xi’an)
15 Synergistic Restoring Effects of Isoproterenol and
Magnesium on KCNQ1-Inhibited Bradycardia Cell
Models Cultured in Microelectrode Array
Kim, S.K.; Pak, H.-N.; Park, Y. (Seoul)
25 Thrombin Generation and Platelet Reactivity at
Hospital Discharge and 6-Month Outcome after the
Acute Coronary Syndrome in Diabetic and
Nondiabetic Patients
Kuliczkowski, W.; Szewczyk, M.; Kaczmarski, J.; Sztohryn, E.;
Greif, M.; Pres, D. (Zabrze); Fortmann, S.D. (Towson, Md.);
Poloński, L. (Zabrze); Serebruany, V. (Towson, Md.)
34 Assessment of Characteristics of Neointimal
Hyperplasia after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in
Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: An Optical Coherence
Tomography Analysis
Tian, F.; Chen, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, T.; Guo, J.; Jin, Q. (Beijing)
43 Rat Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Protect H9C2 Cells
from Cellular Senescence via a Paracrine Mechanism
Zhang, Y. (Suzhou); Wang, D. (Haerbin); Cao, K.; Chen, M.
(Nanjing); Yang, X.; Tao, Y. (Suzhou)
54 Autoantibodies to Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein
in Patients with Aortic Regurgitation: Association with
Aortic Diameter Size
Shimoni, S.; Bar, I.; Zilberman, L.; George, J. (Rehovot)
Novel Insights from Clinical Experience
9 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for a Failed
Bio-Bentall in Patients with Marfan Syndrome
Beigel, R.; Siegel, R.J.; Kahlon, R.S.; Jilaihawi, H.; Cheng, W.;
Makkar, R.R. (Los Angeles, Calif.)
International Journal of
Cardiovascular Medicine, Surgery, Pathology and Pharmacology
International Journal of Experimental, Clinical,
Behavioural, Regenerative and Technological Gerontology
Offizielles Organ der
S. KargerMedical and Scientific Publishers
Basel . Freiburg . Paris .
London . New York .
Bangalore . Bangkok . Shanghai .
Singapore . Tokyo . Sydney
Official Journal of
the Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Association (APPLE)
Scan to access the journal homepage
www.karger.com/LIC
Genetics, Molecular Biology, Evolution, Endocrinology, Em
bryology and Pathologyof Sex Determ
ination and Differentiation
No
w liste
d in
Pu
bM
ed
/Me
dlin
e
The Scie
nce of H
earin
g and B
alance
Journal for
Translational and Clinical Research
Journal of the European Organisation for
Caries Research (ORCA)
a
b
c
h
i
j
g
f
d5 mm
5 mmEnamel
Dentine
Resin
H
L
L
H
Resin
CS
L/H
Demineralization
(7 or 21 days, pH 4.95)
Thickness: 100 μm
3 m
m
5 mm
3.5mm
TMRBaseline
3.5 mm
e
Original Papers
105 Protection of Mice by a �-Based Therapeutic Vaccine
against Cancer Associated with Human Papillomavirus
Type 16
Ghaemi, A. (Gorgan/Tehran); Soleimanjahi, H.; Gill, P.;
Hassan, Z.M.; Razeghi, S.; Fazeli, M.; Razavinikoo, S.M.H.
(Tehran)
113 Characterization of a Late Gene, ORF134, from
Bombyx mori Nucleopolyhedrovirus
Lin, F. (Zhenjiang/Zhejiang); Chen, K.; Xia, H.; Yao, Q.;
Gao, L.; Chen, H. (Zhenjiang)
122 High Conservation of Hepatitis B Virus Surface Genes
during Maternal Vertical Transmission despite Active
and Passive Vaccination
Su, H.-X.; Zhang, Y.-H.; Zhang, Z.-G.; Li, D.; Zhang, J.-X.;
Men, K.; Zhang, L.; Long, Y.; Xu, D.-Z.; Yan, Y.-P. (Xi’an)
131 Genotypic Analysis of Epstein-Barr Virus Isolates
Associated with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in
Northern China
Cui, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Chao, Y.; Xing, X. (Qingdao);
Zhao, C. (Pittsburgh, Pa.); Liu, C.; Luo, B. (Qingdao)
139 Evidence of Hepatitis E Virus Exposure among
Seronegative Healthy Residents of an Endemic Area
Husain, M.M.; Srivastava, R. (Lucknow); Akondy, R.
(Atlanta, Ga.); Aggarwal, R. (Lucknow); Jameel, S.
(New Delhi); Naik, S. (Lucknow)
156 Identification of a New Antigen Epitope in the Nuclear
Localization Signal Region of Porcine Circovirus Type
2 Capsid Protein
Guo, L.; Lu, Y.; Huang, L.; Wei, Y.; Liu, C. (Harbin)
164 Epidemiological and Clinical Features of 308
Hospitalized Patients with Novel 2009 Influenza A
(H1N1) Virus Infection in China during the First
Pandemic Wave
Zhang, G. (Wuhan/Shenzhen); Xia, Z.; Liu, Y. (Shenzhen);
Li, X. (Beijing); Tan, X. (Guangzhou); Tian, Y.; Liang, L.
(Beijing); Nie, G. (Shenzhen); Zhou, B. (Wuhan/Shenzhen)
Short Communications
146 HPV-58 Molecular Variants Exhibit Different
Transcriptional Activity
Raiol, T.; de Amorim, R.M.S. (Brasília); Galante, P. (São Paulo);
Martins, C.R.F. (Brasília); Villa, L.L.; Sichero, L. (São Paulo)
151 Epidemiology and Seroprevalence of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2
Kashyap, B.; Gautam, H.; Bhalla, P. (New Delhi)
Case Report
144 The First Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Case in
the Winter Season from Turkey
Köksal, I.; Yilmaz, G.; Iskender, S.; Arslan, M.; Yavuz, I.;
Aksoy, F. (Trabzon); Vatansever, Z. (Kars)
The European Journal of Obesity
IFSO-EC
European Chapter of the
International Federation for the Surgery of
Obesity and Metabolic Disorders
EASO
European Association for the
Study of Obesity
DAG
Deutsche Adipositas-Gesellschaft
comorbidity
epidemiology
etiology and pathogenesis
prevention
psychological aspects
sociocultural aspects
treatment
Journal of Pharmacological and Biophysical R
esearch
Review
109 Role of Stromal Fibroblasts in Cancer: Prom
oting or
Impeding?
Angeli, F.; Koumakis, G
. (Kapandriti); Chen, M.-C.; Kum
ar, S.
(Manchester); D
elinassios, J.G. (Kapandriti)
Research Articles
121 Usefulness of Serum
Tumor M
arkers, Including
Progastrin-Releasing Peptide, in Patients with Lung
Cancer: Correlation with H
istology
Molina, R.; Augé, J.M
.; Bosch, X.; Escudero, J.M.; Viñolas, N
.;
Marrades, R.; Ram
írez, J.; Carcereny, E.; Filella, X. (Barcelona)
130 Over-Expression of CD
H22 Is A
ssociated with Tum
or
Progression in Colorectal Cancer
Zhou, J.; Li, J.; Chen, J.; Liu, Y.; Gao, W
.; Ding, Y. (G
uangzhou)
141 Antibodies to Prion Protein Inhibit H
uman Colon
Cancer Cell Grow
th
McEwan, J.F.; W
indsor, M.L.; Cullis-H
ill, S.D.
(Bondi Junction, N.S.W
.)
148 A Shift from
Nuclear to Cytoplasm
ic Breast Cancer
Metastasis Suppressor 1 Expression Is A
ssociated with
Highly Proliferative Estrogen Receptor-N
egative
Breast Cancers
Frolova, N.; Edm
onds, M.D
.; Bodenstine, T.M.
(Birmingham
, Ala.); Seitz, R. (Huntsville, Ala.); Johnson, M
.R.;
Feng, R.; Welch, D
.R.; Frost, A.R. (Birmingham
, Ala.)
160 Frequency and Gene Expression Profile of Regulatory
T Cells in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Jeron, A.; Pfoertner, S.; Bruder, D.; G
effers, R.; Ham
merer, P.
(Braunschweig); Hofm
ann, R. (Marburg); Buer, J. (Essen);
Schrader, A.J. (Braunschweig/Marburg)
The Journal of the International Society for Oncology and BioM
arkers
Tumor M
arkers, Tumor Targeting and Translational Cancer Research
Clin
ical
and
Exp
erim
enta
l Sur
gery
Editorials
163 All of ARIA in One Puff?
Mösges, R. (Cologne)
165 Bugs versus Bugs: Probiotics, Microbiome and Allergy
Berin, M.C. (New York, N.Y.)
Opinion Article
215 The Development of the MeDALL Core Questionnaires
for a Harmonized Follow-Up Assessment of Eleven
European Birth Cohorts on Asthma and Allergies
Hohmann, C. (Berlin); Pinart, M. (Barcelona); Tischer, C.
(Neuherberg); Gehring, U. (Utrecht); Heinrich, J. (N
euherberg);
Kull, I.; Melén, E. (Stockholm); Smit, H
.A. (Utrecht); Torrent,
M. (Barcelona/Mahon); Wijga, A.H. (Bilthoven); W
ickman, M.
(Stockholm); Bachert, C. (Ghent); Lødrup Carlsen, K.C.;
Carlsen, K.-H. (Oslo); Bindslev-Jensen, C.; Eller, E. (Odense);
Esplugues, A. (Barcelona/Valencia); Fantini, M.P. (Bologna);
Annesi-Maesano, I.; M
omas, I. (Paris); P
orta, D. (Rome);
Vassilaki, M. (Heraklion); W
aiblinger, D. (Bradford); Sunyer, J.;
Antó, J.M. (Barcelona); Bousquet, J. (
Montpellier/Villejuif);
Keil, T. (Berlin/Würzburg); The MeDALL Study Group
Molecules and Cells in Allergy
168 Altered MicroRNA Expression of Nasal Mucosa in
Long-Term Asthma and Allergic Rhinitis
Suojalehto, H.; Lindström, I.; Majuri, M.-L.; Mitts,
C.;
Karjalainen, J.; Wolff, H
.; Alenius, H. (Helsinki)
179 Cross-Reactivity between Anisak
is spp. and Wasp
Venom Allergens
Rodríguez-Pérez, R.; Monsalve, R.I.; Galán, A.; Perez-Piñar, T.;
Umpierrez, A.; Lluch-Bernal, M.; Polo, F.; Caballero, M.L.
(Madrid)
185 The Genetic Variants of Thymic Stromal
Lymphopoietin Protein in Children with Asthma and
Allergic Rhinitis
Birben, E.; Sahiner, U.M.; Karaaslan, C.; Yavuz, T.S.; Cosgun, E.;
Kalayci, O.; Sackesen, C. (Ankara)
206 Improved FcγRIIb Targeting Functionally Translates
into Enhanced Inhibition of Basophil Activation
Buschor, P.; Eggel, A.; Zellweger, F.; Stadler, B.M.; Vogel, M.
(Bern)
Official Journal of the
Collegium Internationale Allergologicum
INTERNATIONALE
CIA
COLL
EGIU
M
ALLERGOLOGICUM
(Continued on inside front cover)
International Journal for
Cancer Research and Treatment
Original Articles
161 Analysis of the EGFR Mutation Status in Head and Neck Squamous
Cell Carcinoma before Treatment w
ith Gefitinib
169 Correlation between Biological Marker Expression and 18
F-Fluorodeoxyglucose
Uptake in Cervical Cancer Measured by Positro
n Emission Tomography
176 Cranial Magnetic Resonance Im
aging in the Staging of HER2-positive
Breast Cancer Patients
182 Association between the 8473T>C Polymorphism of PTGS2 and Prostate
Cancer Risk: A Metaanalysis Including 24,716 Subjects
188 Frequency of Computed Tomography Examinations in the Follow-Up Care
of Testicular Cancer Patients – an Evaluation of Patterns of Care in Germany
194 Downregulation of miR-145 Expression in Oral Squamous Cell C
arcinomas
and Its Clinical Significance
200 Relevance of Incidental Colorectal FDG-PET/CT-Enhanced Lesions
Case Reports
205 Loss of Transfusion Dependency Following Deferasirox Treatment of Iron
Overload in a Woman with Myelofibrosis and Spherocytosis – a Case Report
209 Panitumumab-Induced Interstitial Lung Disease in a Case of M
etastatic
Colorectal Cancer
Review Article213 ECRG1 and Its
Relationship with Esophageal Cancer: A Brief Review
Österre
ichisc
he Gese
llscha
ft für
Hämato
logie
& Med
izinis
che O
nkolo
gie
Österre
ichisc
he Gese
llscha
ft für
Hämato
logie
& Med
izinis
che O
nkolo
gie
Official Scientific Journal Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
00.250.501 – Specificity
Sensitivity
0.751.00
Clinical Reviews
Official Journal of
Review145 Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Early in Pregnancy:
Targeting the Long-Term Com
plications
Correa, P.J.; Vargas, J.F. (Santiago); Sen, S. (Boston, Mass.);
Illanes, S.E. (Santiago)
Original Articles
150 Polymorphism
s of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide
Synthase Gene in Preeclampsia in a Han Chinese
Population
Chen, Y. (Wenzhou); W
ang, D. (Taizhou); Zhou, M.; Chen, X.
(Wenzhou); Chen, J. (Taizhou)
156 Human Granulosa Cells: Insulin and Insulin-Like
Growth Factor-1 Receptors and Arom
atase Expression
Modulation by M
etformin
Fuhrmeister, I.P.; Branchini, G.; Pim
entel, A.M.; Ferreira, G.D.;
Capp, E.; Brum, I.S.; Corleta, H.E. (Porto Alegre)
163 How Reproducible Are 2-Dim
ensional
Ultrasonographic Follicular Diameter M
easurements
from Stored 3-Dim
ensional Files of Ovarian Scanning?
Servaes, K.; Van Schoubroeck, D.; Welkenhuysen, M
.;
D’Hooghe, T.; De Neubourg, D. (Leuven)
169 Pelvic Inflamm
atory Disease: A Retrospective Clinical
Analysis of 1,922 Cases in North China
Zhao, W.-H.; Hao, M
. (Taiyuan)
176 Vaginal Misoprostol versus Vaginal Estradiol in
Overcom
ing Unsatisfactory Colposcopy
Makkar, B.; Batra, S.; Gandhi, G.; Zutshi, V.; Goswami, D.
(New Delhi)
180 Reproductive Performance after Surgery for
Endometriosis: Predictive Value of the Revised
American Fertility Society Classification and the
Endometriosis Fertility Index
Zeng, C.; Xu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhu, S.; Xue, Q. (Beijing)
186 Association between Polym
orphisms in Sclerostin,
Dickkopfs and Secreted Frizzled-Related Protein
Genes and Bone Mineral Density in Postm
enopausal
Korean Wom
en
Lee, D.O. (Koyang); Kim, H.; Ku, S.-Y.; Kim
, S.H.; Kim, J.G.
(Seoul)194 A Rare Case of Asherm
an’s Syndrome after Open
Myom
ectomy: Sonographic Investigations and
Possible Underlying Mechanism
s
Papoutsis, D.; Georgantzis, D.; Daccò, M.D.; Halm
os, G.;
Moustafa, M
.; Mesquita Pinto, A.R.; M
agos, A. (London)
Novel Insights from Clinical Practice
201 A Rare Familial Case of Endom
etriosis with Very
Severe Gynecological and Obstetric Complications:
Novel Genetic Variants at a Glance
Buggio, L.; Pagliardini, L.; Gentilini, D.; De Braud, L.;
Viganò, P.; Vercellini, P. (Milan)
International Journal of the
Kuwait U
niversity Health Sciences C
entre
ww
w.karger.com
/mpp
DiseasesReview
155 Protective Role of Heat Shock Proteins in Parkinson’s
Disease
Aridon, P.; G
eraci, F.; Turturici, G.; D
’Am
elio, M.; Savettieri, G
.; Sconzo, G
. (Palermo)
Original Papers
169 Spatial Navigation and A
POE in A
mnestic M
ild Cognitive Im
pairment
Laczó, J. (Prague/Brno); Andel, R. (Tam
pa, Fla.); Vlček, K.;
Mat’oška, V. (Prague); Vyhnálek, M
. (Prague/Brno); Tolar, M
. (New
Haven, C
onn.); Bojar, M. (Prague); H
ort, J. (Prague/Brno)
178 Using the W
HO
QO
L-DIS to M
easure Quality of Life in
Persons with Physical D
isabilities Caused by N
eurodegenerative Disorders
Lucas-Carrasco, R. (Barcelona/Salamanca); Pascual-Sedano, B.;
Galán, I.; Kulisevsky, J.; Sastre-G
arriga, J.; Góm
ez-Benito, J. (Barcelona)
187 Transthyretin-Related Hereditary A
myloidosis in
a Chinese Family w
ith TTR Y114C Mutation
Zhang, Y.; Deng, Y.-L.; M
a, J.-F.; Zheng, L.; Hong, Z.;
Wang, Z.-Q
.; Sheng, C.-Y.; Xiao, Q.; Cao, L.; Chen, S.-D
. (Shanghai)
194 Impaired Brain Creatine K
inase Activity in
Huntington’s D
iseaseZhang, S.F.; H
ennessey, T.; Yang, L.; Starkova, N.N
.; Beal, M.F.;
Starkov, A.A
. (New
York, N.Y.)
202 Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in A
lzheimer’s D
isease Fam
ilies with PSEN
1 Mutations
Fortea, J.; Lladó, A.; Bosch, B.; A
ntonell, A.; O
liva, R.; M
olinuevo, J.L.; Sánchez-Valle, R. (Barcelona)
208 Impaired Ideom
otor Limb A
praxia in Cortical and Subcortical D
ementia: A
Comparison of A
lzheimer’s
and Huntington’s D
iseaseH
oll, A.K.; Ille, R. (G
raz); Wilkinson, L. (Bethesda, M
d.); O
tti, D.V.; H
ödl, E.; Herranhof, B.; Reisinger, K.M
.; Müller, N
.; Painold, A
.; Holl, E.M
.; Letmaier, M
. (Graz); Bonelli, R.M
. (Salzburg)
216 rs5848 Variant of Progranulin Gene Is a Risk of
Alzheim
er’s Disease in the Taiw
anese PopulationLee, M
.-J.; Chen, T.-F.; Cheng, T.-W.; Chiu, M
.-J. (Taipei)
221 Presence of Reactive Microglia and N
euro-inflam
matory M
ediators in a Case of Frontotemporal
Dem
entia with P301S M
utationBellucci, A
. (Cambridge/Brescia/Florence); Bugiani, O
. (M
ilan); Ghetti, B. (Indianapolis, Ind.); Spillantini, M
.G.
(Cambridge)
(Continued on inside front cover)
Sounds and Prosodies in Speech Comm
unication
EABIP
International Journal of
Thoracic Medicine
susceptibilityprevention
epidemiologydiagnosis
algorithm based
analysis of
host markers (e.g. predicting
adverse events)pathogen markers
(e.g. predicting
drug resistance)
precision treatments
therapeutic drug
monitoringbiomarkers for
treatment response,
outcome and duration
susceptipreventiibilityion
diagnosis
pre
algorithm based
analysis of
The Journal of Clinical Cytology and Cytopathology
Official Periodical
of the International
Academy of Cytology
19571957
THE INTERNATION
AL ACADEMY OF CYTOLOGY
...
.
. .
Highlights in this issue:�
Treatm
ent of Severe Renal Disease in ANCA Positive and Negative
Sm
all Vessel Vasculitis with Rituxim
ab
Shah, S.; Hruskova, Z.; Segelmark, M
.; Morgan, M
.D.; Hogan, J.; Lee, S.K.; Dale, J.;
Harper, L.; Tesar, V.; Jayne, D.R.W.; Geetha, D. �
Podocyte Structural Param
eters Do Not Predict Progression to
Diabetic Nephropathy in Norm
oalbuminuric Type 1 Diabetic
Patients
Harindhanavudhi, T.; Parks, A.; Mauer, M
.; Caramori, M
.L.
�
A Pathological Scoring System to Predict Renal Outcom
e in
Diabetic NephropathyHoshino, J.; M
ise, K.; Ueno, T.; Imafuku, A.; Kawada, M
.; Sumida, K.; Hiram
atsu, R. ·
Hasegawa, E.; Yamanouchi, M
.; Hayami, N.; Suwabe, T.; Sawa, N.; Hara, S.; Fujii, T.;
Ohashi, K.; Ubara, Y.; Takaichi, K. �
Renal Phospholipase A2 Receptor in Hepatitis B Virus-Associated
Mem
branous NephropathyXie, Q.; Li, Y.; Xue, J.; Xiong, Z.; W
ang, L.; Sun, Z.; Ren, Y.; Zhu, X.; Hao, C.-M.
Official journal of the
European Stroke Research Foundation
Highlights in this issue:
�
Large Size Hemicraniectom
y Reduces Early Herniation in
Malignant M
iddle Cerebral Artery Infarction
Neugebauer, H.; Fiss, I.; Pinczolits, A.; Hecht, N.; Witsch, J.; Dengler, N.F.; Vajkoczy, P.;
Jüttler, E.; Woitzik, J.
�
Endovascular Managem
ent of Acute Ischemic Strokes w
ith
Tandem Occlusions
Fahed, R.; Redjem, H.; Blanc, R.; Labreuche, J.; Robert, T.; Ciccio, G.; Sm
adja, D.;
Smajda, S.; Piotin, M
.
�
Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischem
ic Stroke Due to Tandem
Occlusions: Large Multicenter Series and System
atic Review
Grigoryan, M.; Haussen, D.C.; Hassan, A.E.; Lim
a, A.; Grossberg, J.; Rebello, L.C.;
Tekle, W.; Frankel, M.; Nogueira, R.G.
european stroke conference
Official Journal of the International Society of
Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics
ISNNwww.isnn.info
ESTAB
LISH
ED A
ND CONTINUOUSLY PUBLISHED SINCE
D I G E S T I O NESTAB
LISH
EDAN
UBLISSHHEDSIINNCCE
D I G I O N
1895
Internat ional Journal of
Gast roenterology
Dutch Socie
ty of
Gastro-In
testin
al
Surgery N
V G I C
European Digestive
Surgery E D S
Internatio
nal
Associa
tion of S
urgeons,
Gastroenter
ologists
and Oncologists I
A S G O
aa
Inte
rnatio
nal Journ
al of
Phoniatr
ics,
Speech Thera
py and
Comm
unicatio
n Path
ology
Editor’s Corner 1 A Voyeuristic View of Possibilities and
Threats: Neurosciences and Education
Lee, C.D. (Evanston, Ill.) Original Paper 5 Human-Animal Interaction as a Context for
Positive Youth Development: A Relational
Developmental Systems Approach to
Constructing Human-Animal Interaction
Theory and Research Mueller, M.K. (North Grafton, Mass.) Commentaries 26 The Value of (Research on) Animals in
Children’s Lives. Commentary on Mueller
Severson, R.L. (Vancouver, B.C.)
30 Development and Human-Animal Interaction.
Commentary on Mueller Hurley, K.B. (Davis, Calif.)
Original Paper 35 Coming of Age in the Geospatial Revolution:
The Geographic Self Re-Defined
Downs, R.M. (University Park, Pa.) Commentary 58 Geospatial Tools and the Changing Nature of
Human Spatial Thinking. Commentary on
Downs Gauvain, M. (Riverside, Calif.)
M
edic
al
Epig
enet
ics
Off
icia
l Jou
rnal
of
Inte
rnat
iona
l Neu
roen
docr
ine
Fede
ratio
nEu
rop
ean
Neu
roen
docr
ine
Ass
ocia
tion
Euro
pea
n N
euro
endo
crin
e Tu
mor
Soc
iety
Orig
inal
Pap
ers
241
Pred
icti
on o
f Res
pira
tory
Out
com
e in
Ext
rem
ely
Low
Ges
tati
onal
Age
Infa
nts
Para
d, R
.B.;
Dav
is, J
.M. (
Bos
ton,
Mas
s.);
Lo, J
.; Th
omas
, M.;
Mar
low
, N.;
Cal
vert,
S.;
Peac
ock,
J.L
.; G
reen
ough
, A.
(Lon
don)
249
Keta
min
e A
tten
uate
s th
e A
CTH
Res
pons
e to
Hyp
oxia
in L
ate-
Ges
tati
on O
vine
Fet
us
Cha
ng, E
.I.; W
ood,
C.E
. (G
aine
svill
e, F
la.)
258
Perf
usio
n In
dex
in P
rete
rm In
fant
s du
ring
the
Firs
t
3 D
ays
of L
ife: R
efer
ence
Val
ues
and
Rela
tion
wit
h
Clin
ical
Var
iabl
es
Ald
erlie
sten
, T.;
Lem
mer
s, P
.M.A
.; B
aerts
, W.;
Gro
enen
daal
,
F.; v
an B
el, F
. (U
trech
t)
271
Cost
Sav
ings
of H
uman
Milk
as
a St
rate
gy to
Red
uce
the
Inci
denc
e of
Nec
roti
zing
Ent
eroc
olit
is in
Ver
y Lo
w
Birt
h W
eigh
t Inf
ants
John
son,
T.J
.; Pa
tel,
A.L
.; B
igge
r, H
.R.;
Engs
trom
, J.L
.;
Mei
er, P
.P. (
Chi
cago
, Ill.
)
277
Lung
Dep
osit
ion
of N
ebul
ized
Sur
fact
ant i
n N
ewbo
rn
Pigl
ets
Linn
er, R
.; Pe
rez-
de-S
a, V
.; C
unha
-Gon
calv
es, D
. (Lu
nd)
283
Usi
ng M
easu
rem
ents
of S
hunt
and
Ven
tila
tion
-to-
Perf
usio
n Ra
tio
to Q
uant
ify th
e Se
veri
ty o
f
Bron
chop
ulm
onar
y D
yspl
asia
Das
sios
, T.;
Cur
ley,
A.;
Mor
ley,
C.;
Ros
s-R
usse
ll, R
.
(Cam
brid
ge)
289
Neu
ro-Im
agin
g Fi
ndin
gs in
Infa
nts
wit
h Co
ngen
ital
Cyto
meg
alov
irus
Infe
ctio
n: R
elat
ion
to T
rim
este
r of
Infe
ctio
n
Oos
tero
m, N
.; N
ijman
, J.;
Gun
kel,
J.; W
olfs
, T.F
.W.;
Gro
enen
daal
, F.;
Verb
oon-
Mac
iole
k, M
.A.;
de V
ries,
L.S
.
(Utre
cht)
297
Infa
nt A
rter
ial S
tiff
ness
and
Mat
erna
l Iro
n St
atus
in
Preg
nanc
y: A
UK
Birt
h Co
hort
(Bab
y V
IP S
tudy
)
Alw
an, N
.A.;
Cad
e, J
.E. (
Leed
s); M
cArd
le, H
.J. (
Abe
rdee
n);
Gre
enw
ood,
D.C
. (Le
eds)
; Hay
es, H
.E. (
Abe
rdee
n); C
iant
ar,
E.; S
imps
on, N
.A.B
. (Le
eds)
304
CXCR
4 Bl
ocka
de A
tten
uate
s H
yper
oxia
-Indu
ced
Lung
Inju
ry in
Neo
nata
l Rat
s
Dru
mm
ond,
S.;
Ram
acha
ndra
n, S
.; To
rres
, E.;
Hua
ng, J
.;
Heh
re, D
.; Su
guih
ara,
C.;
Youn
g, K
.C. (
Mia
mi,
Fla.
)
Shor
t Com
mun
icat
ion
266
Phas
e Ch
angi
ng M
ater
ial:
An
Alt
erna
tive
Met
hod
for
Cool
ing
Babi
es w
ith
Hyp
oxic
Isch
aem
ic
Ence
phal
opat
hy
Thom
as, N
.; C
hakr
apan
i, Y.
; Reb
ekah
, G.;
Kar
eti,
K.;
Dev
asah
ayam
, S. (
Vello
re)
Feta
l and
Neo
nata
l Res
earc
h
International Journal of
Cancer Research
and Treatment
Visceral Medicine Gastroenterology, Endoscopy and Surgery –
The Interdisciplinary Approach to Gastrointestinal Disease
formerly
Associated Organ
for Continuing Education
Inte
rnat
ion
al J
ou
rnal
of
Exp
erim
enta
l an
d
C
linic
al P
har
mac
olo
gy
Orig
inal
Pap
ers
121
Bupi
vaca
ine
Indu
ces
Reac
tive
Oxy
gen
Spec
ies
Prod
ucti
on v
ia A
ctiv
atio
n of
the
AM
P-A
ctiv
ated
Prot
ein
Kina
se-D
epen
dent
Pat
hway
Lu, J
.; Xu,
S.Y
.; Zha
ng, Q
.G.; L
ei, H
.Y. (
Gua
ngzh
ou)
135
Expe
rim
enta
l Ost
eoar
thri
tis
in R
ats
Is A
tten
uate
d by
ABC
2946
40, a
Sel
ecti
ve In
hibi
tor o
f Sph
ingo
sine
Kina
se-2
Fitz
patri
ck, L
.R.; G
reen
, C.; M
aine
s, L.
W.; S
mith
, C.D
.
(Her
shey
, Pa.)
144
Nic
oran
dil I
nhib
its
Ang
iote
nsin
-II-In
duce
d
Prol
ifera
tion
of C
ultu
red
Rat C
ardi
ac F
ibro
blas
ts
Liou
, J.-Y
. (Ta
ipei
); H
ong,
H.-J
. (Ta
ichun
g); S
ung,
L.-C
.;
Chao
, H.-H
. (Ta
ipei
); Ch
en, P
.-Y.; C
heng
, T.-H
. (Ta
ichun
g);
Chan
, P.; L
iu, J
.-C. (
Taip
ei)
155
Test
oste
rone
Inhi
bits
cA
MP-
Phos
phod
iest
eras
es in
Hea
rt E
xtra
cts
from
Rat
s an
d In
crea
ses
cAM
P Le
vels
in
Isol
ated
Lef
t Atr
iaBo
rdal
lo, J
.; Can
tabr
ana,
B.; S
uáre
z, L.
; Sán
chez
, M. (
Ovi
edo)
161
Prot
eom
ic A
ppro
ach
to th
e St
udy
of S
tati
n Pl
eiot
ropy
in K
idne
y Tr
ansp
lant
Pat
ient
s
Pére
z, V.
; Nav
arro
-Muñ
oz, M
. (Ba
rcelo
na);
Mas
, S. (
Mad
rid);
Bayé
s, B.
; Pas
tor,
M.C
.; Mar
tínez
-Các
eres
, E.; L
auzu
rica,
R.
(Bar
celo
na);
Egid
o, J.
(Mad
rid);
Rom
ero,
R. (
Barc
elona
)
169
Stud
y of
Adr
ener
gic,
Imid
azol
ine,
and
End
othe
lin
Rece
ptor
s in
Clo
nidi
ne-,
Mor
phin
e-, a
nd O
xyco
done
-
Indu
ced
Chan
ges
in R
at B
ody
Tem
pera
ture
Bhal
la, S
.; And
urka
r, S.
V.; G
ulat
i, A.
(Dow
ners
Gro
ve, I
ll.)
180
Effe
cts
of D
iffer
ent T
ypes
of A
nest
heti
c A
gent
s on
Cellu
lar P
rote
in K
inas
e C-
� D
ynam
ics
in M
ouse
Bra
in
Take
da, A
.; Miy
ashi
ta, R
.; Nag
ura,
T.; S
ekin
e, S.
; Mur
ozon
o, M
.
(Tok
yo);
Mat
sum
oto,
S. (
Ota
City
); U
chin
o, H
. (To
kyo)
187
Effe
cts
of R
ispe
rido
ne o
n Le
arni
ng a
nd M
emor
y in
Nai
ve a
nd M
K-80
1-Tr
eate
d Ra
ts
Kom
suog
lu C
eliky
urt,
I.; A
kar,
F.Y.; U
lak,
G.; M
utlu
, O.;
Erde
n, F.
(Um
utte
pe)
204
Ant
ipyr
etic
and
Ana
lges
ic E
ffec
ts o
f Zal
topr
ofen
for
the
Trea
tmen
t of A
cute
Upp
er R
espi
rato
ry T
ract
Infe
ctio
n: V
erifi
cati
on o
f a N
onin
feri
orit
y H
ypot
hesi
s
Usi
ng L
oxop
rofe
n So
dium
Azum
a, A.
; Kud
oh, S
. (To
kyo)
; Nak
ashi
ma,
M. (
Ham
amat
su);
Nag
atak
e, T.
(Nag
asak
i)21
4 Ef
fect
s of
Sys
tem
ic C
apsa
icin
Tre
atm
ent o
n TR
PV1
and
Tach
ykin
in N
K 1 Rec
epto
r Dis
trib
utio
n an
d Fu
ncti
on in
the
Nuc
leus
of t
he S
olit
ary
Trac
t of t
he A
dult
Rat
Ger
aght
y, D
.P. (L
aunc
esto
n, T
as.);
Maz
zone
, S.B
.
(St L
ucia
, Qld
.); C
arte
r, C.
; Kun
de, D
.A. (
Laun
cesto
n, T
as.)
224
Poss
ible
Rol
e of
Pho
spho
inos
itid
e-3-
Kina
se in
Mx1
Prot
ein
Tran
slat
ion
and
Ant
ivir
al A
ctiv
ity
of
Inte
rfer
on-O
meg
a-St
imul
ated
HeL
a Ce
lls
Seo,
Y.; K
im, M
.; Cho
i, M
.; Kim
, S.; P
ark,
K.; O
h, I.
; Chu
ng, S
.;
Suh,
H.; H
ong,
S.; P
ark,
S. (
Chun
gche
ongb
uk-d
o)
232
Ang
iote
nsin
II R
ecep
tor B
lock
er, L
osar
tan,
Am
elio
rate
s G
enta
mic
in-In
duce
d O
xida
tive
Str
ess
and
Nep
hrot
oxic
ity
in R
ats
Hee
ba, G
.H. (
El-M
inia
)Sh
ort C
omm
unic
atio
ns13
0 Th
e A
bilit
y of
Flu
cona
zole
to P
enet
rate
into
Vent
ilate
d, H
ealt
hy a
nd In
flam
ed L
ung
Tiss
ue in
a
Mod
el o
f Sev
ere
Seps
is in
Rat
s
Mau
ric, O
.; Tha
lling
er, C
.; Kug
ler, S
.A.; J
oukh
adar
, S.M
.;
Kova
r, F.M
. (Vi
enna
); Ko
nz, K
.H. (
Mön
chen
glad
bach
);
Gra
ning
er, W
. (Vi
enna
); Jo
ukha
dar,
C. (V
ienn
a/Bo
ston,
Mas
s.)
152
Olo
pata
dine
Hyd
roch
lori
de In
hibi
ts C
apsa
icin
-
Indu
ced
Flar
e Re
spon
se in
Hum
ans
Shin
do, M
.; Yos
hida
, Y.; Y
amam
oto,
O. (
Yona
go)
195
Enal
apri
lat-
Med
iate
d A
ctiv
atio
n of
Kin
in B
1 Rec
epto
rs
and
Vaso
dila
tion
in th
e Ra
t Iso
late
d Pe
rfus
ed K
idne
y
Baut
ista-
Pére
z, R.
; Are
llano
, A.; F
ranc
o, M
.; Oso
rio, H
.;
Coro
nel,
I. (M
exico
City
)
Explo
ring th
e Bas
is of D
iseas
e
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 0
50
100
150
Days i
n cu
lture
PD
AG11
513
AG01
972
AG09
602
GM00
969
200
250
300
××
××
××
AG09
602 (
PD 19
)
AG11
513 (
PD 20
)
International Union of
Nutritional Sciences (IUNS)
IUNS
Federation of European
Nutrition Societies (FENS)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Ernährung (DGE)
Offi cial Journal of
Affi liated with
Japanese Society for
Parenteral & Enteral Nutrition (JSPEN)
Early Nutrition Academy
KI 1
6220
Introducing the new interdisciplinary Karger journal
Karger premium quality – open access – peer-reviewed – rapid publication
Get the full picture on www.biomedicinehub.com
We invite you to submit now!There is currently no Article Processing Charge (APC).www.karger.com/bmh_guidelines
• 16 internationally renowned senior editors
• over 170 Editorial Board Members
• from 35 countries
• specialized in 41 medical disciplines
Biomedicine Hub is an interdisciplinary journal: a ‚hub‘ for researchers, clinicians and public health professionals across biomedical discip-lines to share research findings, ideas, theories, experimental results and clinical experience. Biomedicine Hub aims at facilitating the
exchange of knowledge between disciplines, with a focus on translational science for the development of cutting-edge technologies and the improvement of health care. A further focus is on emerging interdisciplinary fields at the forefront of medicine.
Join us on FacebookBiomedicine Hub
E-Mail [email protected] www.karger.com
S. KargerMedical and Scientific PublishersBasel • Freiburg • Paris • London • New York • New Delhi • Bangkok • Beijing • Tokyo • Kuala Lumpur • Singapore • Sydney
DisclaimerThe statements, opinions and data contained in this publica-tion are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements in the journal is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Drug DosageThe authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to en-sure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of informa-tion relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any change in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precau-tions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center (see ‘General Information’).
© Copyright 2013 by S. Karger AG,CH–4009 Basel (Switzerland)Printed in Switzerland on acid-free and non-aging paper (ISO 9706) by Reinhardt Druck, Basel
E-Mail [email protected]
Preface
The dissemination of information to the scientific community at large is a critical aspect of the research process. Effective communication not only con-tributes to the wider body of knowledge, it also provokes thought, stirs discus-sion and stimulates further research. In the present era of information explo-sion, clear communication can tip the balance in favor of success.
The scientific manuscript and symposium presentation of recent research still remain the core tools with which we communicate our findings. But how can we maximize the impact of our conclusions? How can we get our message across in print and in person? And how do we handle criticism? While the process of writing a manuscript or presenting a slideshow in front of a live audience can be daunting, these skills can be both taught and learned.
This compendium of articles covers the key aspects of preparing a scien-tific manuscript and a symposium presentation. The first article, ‘How to Write a Research Paper’, is followed by two complementary articles, ‘How to Handle a Rejection’ and ‘Suggestions for Reviewing Manuscripts’. The final two articles are geared towards symposia communications, namely, ‘Writing Good Abstracts’ and ‘How to Prepare and Deliver a Scientific Presentation’.
Although they are targeted to the field of cerebrovascular research, the principles described here apply to all fields within the biomedical sciences. We hope that this compilation will provide a useful guide for researchers at all levels.
London, May 2013
Michael G. HennericiEditor-in-Chief of Cerebrovascular Diseases
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
www.karger.com/ced
Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;18:135–138DOI: 10.1159/000079266
How to Write a Research Paper
Andrei V. Alexandrov
Stroke Treatment Team, Houston Medical School, University of Texas, Houston, Tex., USA
Received: October 20, 2003Accepted: February 6, 2004Published online: June 23, 2004
Dr. A.V. AlexandrovUniversity of Texas6431 Fannin St, MSB 7.044Houston, TX 77030 (USA)Tel. +1 713 500 7087, Fax +1 713 500 7097, E-Mail [email protected]
ABCFax + 41 61 306 12 34E-Mail [email protected]
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel1015–9770/04/0182–0135$21.00/0
Accessible online at:www.karger.com/ced
Key WordsPeer review W Perfect manuscript W Writing skills
AbstractBackground: Busy strokologists often find little time forscientific writing. They sometimes develop a mental con-dition equivalent to that known by neurologists as writ-er’s cramp. It may result in permanent damage to aca-demic career. This paper provides advice how to preventor treat this condition. Methods: Prepare your manu-script following the IMRaD principle (Introduction, Meth-ods, Results, and Discussion), with every part supportingthe key message. When writing, be concise. Clearly stateyour methods here, while data belong to Results. Suc-cessful submissions combine quality new data or newthinking with lucid presentation. Results: Provide datathat answer the research question. Describe here mostimportant numeric data and statistics, keeping in mindthat the shorter you can present them, the better. Thescientific community screens abstracts to decide whichfull text papers to read. Make your point with data, notarguments. Conclusions: Conclusions have to be basedon the present study findings. The time of lengthy andunfounded speculations is over. A simple message in aclearly written manuscript will get noticed and mayadvance our understanding of stroke.
Copyright © 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
By now you probably wrote an abstract and submittedit to a stroke conference. Your mentor reminds you sever-al times to start drafting a paper, and you have no ideawhere to start. As a simple trick, copy and paste yourabstract so that Background becomes your introduction.For the rest, follow the IMRaD principle: Introduction,Methods, Results, and Discussion [1–3]. Think what ‘takehome message’ you’d like to deliver and to whom. Thetitle sells the paper.
‘Busy strokologists often find little time ... to treat thiscondition’: this introduction concisely describes the studyhypothesis, rationale, purpose, and objectives. A three-paragraph introduction is plenty for most topics. Expandwith facts from papers previously published by others,among whom you may occasionally find your mentor. Doa thorough literature search for earlier sources dealingwith your subject [4–6]. Tell here what is known in thefield. You do not need to refer to every paper ever writtenon this topic. Select key references and remember that forpublishing purposes, less is better than more. Consultyour mentor as often as possible – he is the senior authorafter all.
The third paragraph should state the research question[7]. You may take an original paper already published inCerebrovascular Diseases to use as a template. Formulatethe research question clearly since data presentationshould provide equally clear answers.
136 Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;18:135–138 Alexandrov
Subjects and Methods
The first author drafts the manuscript and determinesco-authors [8]. Although general guidelines are available[8], the reality often demands seeking advice from yourmentor. Inappropriate inclusion of authors will decreasethe likelihood of manuscript acceptance.
Describe subject selection criteria and data collectiontools. Make this description detailed enough so that ifsomeone wants to repeat the study, it will be possible. Ifnew imaging technology was used, tell how and by whomthese tests were validated. Avoid presenting actual data inthis section: ‘Study subjects were recruited from 1,215patients admitted to our stroke unit from August 1999through August 2002’. Instead say: ‘Study subjects wererecruited from consecutive patients admitted to ourstroke unit. Inclusion criteria were ...’. Methods may dis-close power calculations, estimated sample size, and stop-ping rules.
Provide additional evidence that would increase confi-dence in the reliability of your methods. Control forbiases, validation of research tools, ‘blinding’ of observ-ers – all of these facts, if established before the study ini-tiation, will strengthen the manuscript. Describe in detailthe outcome models or dependent variables. For clinicaloutcomes or surrogate markers, reference a pivotal trial orstudy that established their relevance.
Documentation of protection of research subjects isessential. Clearly state if a local ethics committee ap-proved your study. This ensures patients or animal rightsprotection, particularly if experiments were performed.The author also needs to disclose funding sources andpotential for commercial bias such as connections withthe pharmaceutical industry. Data safety monitoring, in-dependent data acquisition and analysis during clinicaltrials and appropriate overseeing committees should bementioned if applicable.
Major scientific journals currently accept less than25% of submitted manuscripts. If rejected, it does notnecessarily mean your manuscript is poor. Rejectionmeans that reviewers did not give it a high enough priori-ty. You should not be too disappointed because, after all,you got very good advice how to improve your manu-script. Follow reviewers’ suggestions and you increase thelikelihood that another esteemed journal will accept it.The most important factors for publication are the quali-ty, novelty, reliability and scientific or clinical importanceof your work. A manuscript should disclose new informa-tion or a new way of thinking about old information. Ifnot, it will not be published – regardless of how well it is
written. Avoid redundant or duplicate publications sincethese should not be published. Scientific publishing isextremely competitive, and chances are that by the timeyou conceived the project, 10 other groups were alreadydoing it and 5 others have already published it. Stay ontop of current literature and know the limitations ofresearch done by others.
The last paragraph of this section should describe toolsof statistical analysis appropriate to study design. Consulta statistician before embarking on a project, work with astatistician to analyze and interpret the data, and have astatistician reviewing the whole manuscript for clarity ofstatistical analysis and data presentation.
Results
Your results are the most important part of the manu-script. Present them clearly by avoiding long and confus-ing sentences. The shorter you can present your data intables and figures, the better. Remain focused and disci-plined. The flurry of numbers and ‘p’ values should followsimple logics. Start by describing your study subjects, useactual numbers for study demographics. Avoid openingsentences like: ‘Table 1 summarizes our findings in sub-group C’. This makes reviewers frustrated since they haveto flip back and forth through pages to understand whatwas done to study subjects.
Make data presentation so clear and simple that a tiredperson riding late on an airplane can take your manu-script and get the message at first reading. Very few peo-ple can write a perfect manuscript on the first draft.Return to the draft, read it, change cumbersome parts,read other papers and change the draft again, and again,and again. I still do it before I give the manuscript to myco-authors. But do not hold it for too long. Remember, ‘10other groups ...’.
Present results to colleagues since they would likely askfor more data or analyses. Most likely the reviewers of anyesteemed journal would do the same, so include data inthe first draft of your manuscript. The internal review ishelpful to determine sufficient data to answer the researchquestion.
Most importantly, provide data relevant to the re-search question. Observations beyond the primary re-search question can be included in the manuscript, if theystrengthen your case. Remember to stay in focus. If youget lost from the aim of the study, so will be reviewers.Prestigious journals have a strict word limit for papersthey accept. You need all this space to deliver the key mes-
Publish or Perish Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;18:135–138 137
sage, so do not mess around but concentrate on the essen-tial. Packing manuscript with data is better than splittingthe paper into separate small ones.
Mention a statistical test that generated specific ‘p’ val-ues or coefficients. Show absolute numbers as well as per-centages so that reviewers can judge the significance ofyour observations. Remember that statistical differencedoes not necessarily translate into clinical significance.
Make your point with data, not arguments.
Discussion
This section should start with: ‘Our study showed ...’ tolucidly summarize your study findings. Discussion isoften the weakest part of the manuscript. Do not repeatthe introduction. Do not present any new data that werenot shown in the results section and avoid repeating datapresentation. There is no reason to underline how terrificyour results are – let them speak for themselves.
The second paragraph may describe the novelty ofyour findings or if they parallel previous research. Re-member, only the beginners try to refer to all publishedpapers in the field. No esteemed journal can afford thespace needed for this. A skillful selection of the most perti-nent references demonstrates a command of the relevantliterature. Confirmatory research makes passing the re-view process more difficult. Arbitrarily, the ratio of ab-stracts to original papers in curriculum vitae should beless than 3 to 1. If there are too many abstracts, you eitherhave writer’s cramp or the quality of your research isinsufficient for publication.
The third paragraph may describe how your study con-tradicts previous research or established dogmas. If therewas disagreement about study interpretation by co-au-thors, mention different conclusions drawn from yourresults or other studies [9, 10]. Avoid general statementsthat are not founded in data. Do not provide your opinionhow to solve a problem that was not directly evaluated inyour study. Do not write a review of all possible mecha-nisms that you have not accounted for in your study. Youcan write a short but to-the-point Discussion.
The fourth paragraph should describe study limita-tions. If you do not discuss study weaknesses, the review-ers will. Study limitations may be contrasted with studystrengths. This part may also mention unresolved ques-tions and direction of future research.
The concluding paragraph can summarize the poten-tial significance of your findings and what changes toresearch or clinical practice your data may support. This
is a critical part since it is easy to overestimate the signifi-cance of your research. Avoid broad claims and strongstatements. Remember that even pioneer break-throughstudies require independent confirmation. Publication ina peer-reviewed journal means completion of your projectand dissemination of research results [11, 12].
Clinicians need to develop skills in scientific writing. Ifyou make a significant observation, a proper and fastscientific communication is required [12]. Improvingyour scientific writing is a life-long process. If and whenyour papers are rejected, remember that most manu-scripts face the same fate. Avoid choosing an inappro-priate journal for your manuscript submission. Commonreasons for rejection include inappropriate or incompletestatistics; over-interpretation of results; inappropriate orsub-optimal instrumentation; a sample too small orbiased; difficult-to-follow writing; insufficient problemstatement; inaccuracy or inconsistency of the data re-ported; incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of theliterature; insufficient data presented, and defective ta-bles or figures [13–15]. When reading criticism, learnfrom your mistakes or the advice given to you. Whilewrestling with reviewers, you will become a better scien-tific writer but also a better, more critical scientist. In thelong run this will make a major difference to your aca-demic career, and probably will also improve your patientcare. Most likely, your way of writing will become moreevidence based.
An anonymous and probably frustrated academicianonce said: ‘Publish or perish!’. This brutally honest state-ment should motivate you to learn yet another set of use-ful skills. Good luck!
Acknowledgment
The author is not a native English speaker. I am indebted to JohnNorris, MD, FRCP, for – among many things during fellowshiptraining – his patience with my ‘a’s and ‘the’s, and the first lessons instudy design, analysis, and presentation. The infamous ‘NorrisRules’ that he taught his fellows are partly reflected in this paper.
138 Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;18:135–138 Alexandrov
References
1 Pakes GE: Writing manuscripts describingclinical trials: A guide for pharmacotherapeuticresearchers. Ann Pharmacother 2001;35:770–779.
2 Pamir MN: How to write an experimentalresearch paper. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002;83:109–113.
3 Kern MJ, Bonneau HN: Approach to manu-script preparation and submission: How to getyour paper accepted. Catheter Cardiovasc In-terv 2003;58:391–396.
4 Cummins RO: Learning to write: Can bookshelp? J Med Educ 1981;56:128–132.
5 Linney BJ: The three R’s of writing: Reading,‘riting,’ and risking. Physician Exec 1997;23:59–61.
6 Cupples SA: Publishing the research report.Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1999;13(suppl 1):S123–S130.
7 Wojner AW: Outcomes Management: Applica-tions to Clinical Practice. St Louis, Mosby2001, pp 69–88.
8 Anonymous: Policy on papers’ contributors.Nature 1999;399:393.
9 Horton R: The hidden research paper. JAMA2002;287:2775–2778.
10 Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I: Discussionsections in reports of controlled trials publishedin general medical journals. JAMA 2002;287:2799–2801.
11 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, GatsonisCA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, MoherD, Rennie D, De Vet HC; STARD Group:Towards complete and accurate reporting ofstudies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARDinitiative. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:51–55.
12 Pearn J: Publication: An ethical imperative.BMJ 1995;310:1313–1315.
13 Bordage G: Reasons reviewers reject and ac-cept manuscripts: The strengths and weak-nesses in medical education reports. Acad Med2001;76:889–896.
14 Samet JM: Dear author – advice from a retiringeditor. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:433–436.
15 DeBehnke DJ, Kline JA, Shih RD: Researchfundamentals: Choosing an appropriate jour-nal, manuscript preparation, and interactionswith editors. Research Committee of the Soci-ety for Academic Emergency Medicine. AcadEmerg Med 2001;8:844–850.
E-Mail [email protected]
Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:209–212 DOI: 10.1159/000347106
How to Handle a Rejection Teaching Course Presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012
Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian a Michael G. Hennerici b
a Neuroscience Centre, Raffles Hospital and Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore ; b Department of Neurology, UniversitätsMedizin Mannheim UMM, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim , Germany
tors). An invitation to resubmit ‘de novo’ occurs in only 1–5% of submissions; it requires substantial revision before resub-mission. Being rejected but invited to resubmit a revised ver-sion occurs in 5–20% of submissions – it indicates a good chance of acceptance; one should carefully read the feed-back and respond/comply with all suggestions. Papers re-jected repeatedly may have ‘fatal flaws’ and are best aban-doned. Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
There are increasing numbers of submissions to in-creasing numbers of journals, with thousands of research papers being published across a myriad of medical jour-nals every year. In the current ‘publish or perish’ world of academia, researchers may feel the pressure to publish as many papers as possible in the shortest possible time for the purposes of promotion, application for research fund-ing or just to retain one’s job [1] . Certain journals may be also be preferred, e.g. those with higher impact factors. The rush to write many papers within a limited period may result in poorer quality writing. This may lead to re-jection of the paper as the standards demanded by the journal may not be met.
An author may feel that he/she has written the best possible paper, and that no respectable journal should re-
Key Words
Publication · Acceptance · Rejection
Abstract
The rejection rate by scientific journals may be rather high, sometimes up to 70–90%. On receipt of notification of rejec-tion, one may experience various stages of the Kübler-Ross grief cycle – denial, anger, bargaining, depression and ac-ceptance, with an initial shock and an intermediate ‘testing’ stage. A paper may be rejected because of several reasons, such as the following: (1) it was submitted to an inappropri-ate journal, (2) journal format was not followed, (3) reading was not interesting or scientific/clinically sound, (4) topic was not current, (5) research was not novel, (6) low publica-tion priority despite the absence of major flaws, (7) poor En-glish/writing style, (8) poor methods and statistics, (9) unbe-lievable results that were not properly discussed and (10) ‘recycled’ paper. Plagiarism is not tolerated. Simultaneous submission to 2 or more journals is not allowed. Outright re-jection sometimes occurs in 70–80%; for 10–15%, the editor rejects without sending the paper to reviewers for obvious reasons as mentioned. For the majority, reviewers give feed-back that leads to the editor rejecting the paper. On receiv-ing notification of rejection, one should read the feedback and consider its contents prior to rewriting and submitting the paper to another journal (sometimes reviewers may see the same manuscript several times if asked by different edi-
Received: January 15, 2013 Accepted: January 15, 2013 Published online: February 28, 2013
Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian Neuroscience Centre, Raffles Hospital 585 North Bridge Road Singapore 188770 (Singapore) E-Mail drnvramani @ gmail.com
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel1015–9770/13/0353–0209$38.00/0
www.karger.com/ced
Venketasubramanian /Hennerici
Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:209–212 DOI: 10.1159/000347106
210
ject it. However, rejection is part and parcel of academic life. Few authors, no matter how well known, would have had all their submitted papers accepted fully at first sub-mission. Rejection allows for reflection; it is a humbling experience and provides an opportunity for self-improve-ment. A thoughtfully reviewed paper with insightful feed-back makes for a better revised paper, and may even translate to better research. Generally, rejection rates fall with increasing writing experience. Acceptance rates vary across journals, generally in the range of 20–30%. The journal Stroke has publically stated its acceptance rate as 19% similar to Cerebrovascular Diseases [2] .
The Stages of Grief
Dr. Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, a medical doctor in Swit-zerland, spent a lot of time with the dying. In her book On Death and Dying, she described the now well-known 5 stages of the grief cycle – denial, anger, bargaining, de-pression and acceptance [3] . This has been extended to include an initial shock stage and an intermediate ‘testing’ stage before acceptance.
The receipt of notification of rejection, usually by email but occasionally by letter or fax, may lead to an ini-tial state of shock and immobilization. At this stage, it may be best to sit down if you are not already seated, or even to lie down if needed. One should stay calm and take a few deep breaths as one carefully reads the notification again for the reasons for rejection.
In the denial stage, one may deny the occurrence of the rejection, and believe rejection is not true. One should put away the notification in a safe place, not dis-card it completely. There is probably little value in re-checking the notification to see if it was addressed cor-rectly, referred to the correct paper, or was from the cor-rect journal – editorial offices rarely make such grave errors. One should not wait for a second notification apologising for the error with the first, and saying the paper is actually accepted without revision, as this is un-likely to happen!
During the stage of anger, one should let out one’s emotions in a controlled manner. One might curse the editor, but sending a strongly worded letter/email is ill-advised. One may curse the journal, but one should not spam or hack into the website. One may curse the re-search project, the project leader/supervisor, or research as a whole. Such ventilation may actually be cathartic.
When bargaining, one may try to seek a way out. One could write to the editor asking for a second review/ac-
ceptance, but this is usually in vain. One could rewrite the paper and resubmit to the same journal, but this is un-likely to succeed unless one is asked by the journal to re-submit the paper.
As one realizes the inevitable truth of rejection, one may become depressed. One should take a break, cheer oneself up, avoid self-blame. Accept sympathy and sup-port from colleagues and co-authors, especially those who have gone through a similar experience before.
In the final testing and acceptance stages, one seeks a realistic solution to the situation, a reasonable way out, e.g. decide to revise the paper based on the feedback of the reviewers and submit to another journal. This will lead to a return to stability, and one can attend to the matter at hand.
Not all authors will experience grief reactions, and not all who do so will go through all the stages mentioned above. If one has a grief reaction, one should try to get to the acceptance stage as quickly as possible.
Why Papers Are Rejected
While it varies according to the journal, rejection rates are generally high, more so with the more sought-after journals. There are a number of reasons why papers are rejected [4–9] . Understanding these reasons would aid the author in the initial choice of journal and so avoid the situation of immediate rejection and also understand why the journal rejected the paper: (1) Inappropriate journal – the paper may not be in the
journal’s particular focus/area of interest. A too low/high impact journal for this paper was inappropriately chosen.
(2) Journal format not followed – journals have set for-mats that should be strictly adhered to.
(3) Issue not interesting or of scientific/clinical value – the topic may not be of general interest to that journal’s readership, or not of value to the readers in the course of their clinical or research work; the question being answered by the paper is not a clinically/research-wise important one.
(4) Topic not/no longer ‘hot’/current – interest in a recent ‘hot’ topic may have already faded.
(5) Not original/novel/new – the area being addressed has been well described before, in particular in the journal to which the paper was submitted.
(6) Journal priority – based on priority decisions for pub-lication for a journal, many manuscripts without any major flaws may still be rejected.
Handling Rejection Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:209–212 DOI: 10.1159/000347106
211
(7) Poor writing style – very poor English; no ‘oomph’/punch; a poorly written or unfocused paper with no clear message, where the writing does not flow logi-cally, further suggesting that the topic was poorly re-searched or thought through; the various sections In-troduction/Methods/Results/Discussion not all equal-ly well written; dated references; poor quality tables/figures.
(8) Poor methods and statistics – methodology not rigor-ous enough, resulting in serious biases.
(9) Results not believable/clinically or scientifically un-sound – when findings go against the grain of known data or popular opinion, the authors need to make a very strong case in their discussion with rigorous methodology and analysis of their results.
(10) ‘Recycled’ paper – many editors and reviewers sit on the review boards of more than 1 journal; they may be asked to review a paper they had reviewed before and rejected for another journal, and this ‘new’ submission is resubmitted without any amendments after the oth-er journal’s rejection/comments for improvement. It is far less likely that papers are rejected for political
reasons – authors are able to indicate whom they do not wish to review the paper; the editor may be wary of that reviewer’s comments but may still ask him/her. While there is reviewer variability, 2–3 reviews are usually sought and differences in opinions looked at. Papers are not rejected primarily due to poor grammar, but an un-grammatical paper is hard to read. Plagiarism is not toler-ated. Simultaneous submission to 2 or more journals is not allowed – if it is done, the editor should be informed.
Outright Rejection
This occurs 70–80% of the time. For about 10–15% of submissions, the editor makes a decision to reject without sending to the reviewers, usually for reasons 1–5 above. However, for the majority 60–75%, it is the reviewers who give feedback that leads to the editor rejecting the paper. On receiving the notification of rejection, one should read the comments of the editor and reviewers and re-write the paper considering these comments.
The paper should then be submitted to another appro-priate journal. One should avoid resubmitting without rewriting, i.e. ‘recycling’. The title may need to be tweaked; the journal’s format instructions should be closely fol-lowed. The comments of the previous review should be addressed – avoid recycling the same paper as the review-er may be the same person! Reviewers often spend a lot of
time improving the manuscript and even recommend ac-ceptance after revision to the editor. Parts of the study may need to be redone, additional data may need to be collected/generated, or reanalysis may be needed with the aid of a statistician. Reference lists may need updating or illustrations made more appropriate.
Do consult successful authors, co-authors and mem-bers – even the head – of your department, and be honest in all aspects of the paper: you may get valuable com-ments and recommendations. In case your native lan-guage is not English, contact a native English speaker and ask for his/her support. This can be very useful, in par-ticular if he/she is familiar with the topic of the manu-script.
Rejected, Invited to Resubmit ‘de novo’
The invitation to resubmit afresh to the same journal occurs for about 1–5% of submissions. This approach is generally used when there is a need for substantial revision of the paper including new analyses and presentation of data of an important piece of work. It indicates that a de-cision cannot be made as the manuscript currently stands – the revised work is needed to take an editorial decision, which may be positive or negative, i.e. rejection may still occur. One should carefully read the comments of the ed-itor and the reviewers, rewrite the paper considering these comments, and resubmit as soon as possible – most jour-nals allow a 3- to 6-month timeline for resubmission.
Rejected, Invited to Resubmit
This ‘happy’ situation occurs for about 5–20% of sub-missions. While not confirmatory, it indicates a good chance of acceptance. One should read the comments of the editor and the reviewers carefully – all of them are ex-perts in their field, so it would be advisable to make all suggested changes. These changes should be clearly high-lighted in the accompanying ‘thankful’ cover letter, de-scribing the change as well as the page and line in the text where the changes were made, and highlighting in the text the changes, in bold/underline/colour/track-changes mode, with an accompanying ‘clean’ copy. Each journal will have its instructions on resubmissions, which should be strictly followed.
If one strongly disagrees with the comments by the editor or reviewer, one can politely explain why and this may actually be accepted. One should adhere to the over-
Venketasubramanian /Hennerici
Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:209–212 DOI: 10.1159/000347106
212
all format of the journal. Resubmit as soon as possible, usual timelines are within 3–6 months. While unlikely, the paper may still be rejected. At times, a further resub-mission is requested to clarify a few key issues. Thereafter, one merely has to await the most welcome notification of acceptance!
Abandoning the Paper
Repeated rejections by various journals may reflect ‘fa-tal flaws’ where the paper is not salvageable due to incor-rigible problems with methods, results/analysis – such a paper may best be left unpublished. Most papers have ‘non-fatal flaws’, a redeemable paper, which a less rigor-ous journal may accept. A long, hard, honest look at the comments by the editors and reviewers would be most revealing. One should not give up too easily; not publish-ing important new information is unethical and unscien-tific [10, 11] .
Conclusions
Rejection is part of academic life. Grief reactions are explicable and should be overcome as soon as possible. There are many fundamental reasons for rejection. If there is outright rejection, look at all comments, rewrite the paper, and resubmit to an appropriate journal. If the paper is rejected but the authors are advised to resubmit, follow all advice and resubmit as soon as possible. Con-sider abandoning only if the paper has fatal flaws – try, try again. The only way not to face rejection is to avoid sub-mitting one’s work altogether [12] . Even if a rejection is received, one should have the satisfaction of knowing that efforts were made by the authors and the editor/review-ers; some papers never get that far. Persistently trying to publish will help one become a better writer with fewer rejections and make one a valuable contributor to the sci-entific and clinical literature.
References
1 Brandon AN: Publish or perish. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1963; 51: 109–110.
2 http://stroke.ahajournals.org/site/misc/stats.xhtml (accessed December 9, 2012).
3 Kübler-Ross E: On Death and Dying. New York, MacMillan, 1969.
4 Bosch X, Alfonso F, Bermejo J: Why was our manuscript rejected? Rev Esp Cardiol 2002; 55: 782–783.
5 Gupta P, Kaur G, Sharma B, Shah D, Choud-hury P: What is submitted and what gets ac-cepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of sub-missions, review process, decision making,
and criteria for rejection. Indian Pediatr 2006; 43: 479–489.
6 Wyness T, McGhee CN, Patel DV: Manu-script rejection in ophthalmology and visual science journals: identifying and avoiding the common pitfalls. Clin Experiment Ophthal-mol 2009; 37: 864–867.
7 Catai AM, Grossi DB, Mancini MC: My man-uscript was rejected, and now? Rev Bras Fi-sioter 2011; 15:V–VI.
8 Dogra S: Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it. Indian J Dermatol Ve-nereol Leprol 2011; 77: 123–127.
9 Morgan PP: How to get a rejected manu-script published. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 133: 86–87.
10 Cleophas RC, Cleophas TJ: Is selective report-ing of clinical research unethical as well as un-scientific? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 37: 1–7.
11 Savitz DA: Failure to publish results of epide-miologic studies is unethical. Epidemiology 2000; 11: 361–363.
12 Gay JT, Edgil AE: When your manuscript is rejected. Nurs Health Care 1989; 10: 459–461.
Fax +41 61 306 12 34E-Mail [email protected]
Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;28:243–246 DOI: 10.1159/000228588
Suggestions for Reviewing Manuscripts
Andrei V. Alexandrov a Michael G. Hennerici b Bo Norrving c
a Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of Alabama Hospital, Birmingham, Ala. , USA; b Department of Neurology, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim , Germany; c Department of Neurology,University Hospital, Lund , Sweden
as upon the journal’s. Use a constructive tone, and if you see any deficiencies, educate the authors in a respectful manner so that, even if a manuscript is rejected, they will learn from you, improve the manuscript or conduct a better study in the future. Also include ratings from 1 to 7 in your comments to the authors, as far as they are relevant and may explain your final decision. Conclusions: Judge others as you would like to be judged yourself. We hope these suggestions serve to help new reviewers and refresh the willingness of battle-hardened veterans to continuously serve the medical litera-ture. Copyright © 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Matthew 7: 1–3 But who are the judges?!
Aleksandr Griboedov (1794–1829)
Introduction
It is an understatement to note that reviewing is a touchy subject. Given the wide range of publications sub-ject to review, we hope the following suggestions for re-viewing are understood as guidelines. Although many reviewers have worked at a high level from the beginning, the steady increase in submissions forces them to plan and become a bit more focused. We also provide these suggestions for future referees of scientific writing.
Key Words
Peer review � Ethics � Validity
Abstract
Background: Scientific reviewing is a voluntary process to determine if a manuscript deserves publication. REVIEW means: Responsibly Evaluate, Verify and Improve the manu-script, Educate the authors and editors, and Weigh your ex-pert opinion against the submitted work. Provide your re-view in a respectful, unbiased and timely manner. Review
Methods: Make sure editors know about your willingness to review and your particular area(s) of expertise. If you find yourself in a conflict of interest, decline to participate in re-viewing. If you accept, complete reviews on time. Determine and rate (1) the methodological validity, (2) originality, (3) significance of findings, (4) the style and clarity of presenta-tion and (5) the findings’ interest to the readership of the journal for which you are asked to review a manuscript. Spe-cifically evaluate (6) if the results support any claims or con-clusions made and, most importantly, (7) if the abstract cor-rectly reflects the full content of a manuscript. Summarize your review in specific comments to the authors. Make rec-ommendations whether to accept, revise or reject the man-uscript to the editor only. Review Results: Start with a brief summary of the manuscript’s subject, strengths and key findings/claims. Present your specific criticisms and sugges-tions in numbered lists for the authors to address. Never use demeaning and offensive words or sarcasm since, in the first place, this reflects upon your own ethics and integrity as well
Received: March 9, 2009 Accepted: March 13, 2009 Published online: July 14, 2009
Dr. A.V. Alexandrov Comprehensive Stroke Center UAB Hospital RWUH M226, 619 19th Street South Birmingham, AL 35249 (USA) Tel. +1 205 934 2401, Fax +1 205 975 6785, E-Mail [email protected]
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel1015–9770/09/0283–0243$26.00/0
Accessible online at:www.karger.com/ced
Alexandrov /Hennerici /Norrving Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;28:243–246244
If you are thinking about becoming a reviewer, this pa-per will introduce you to this process and outline some of the – often unspoken and implied – principles. Senior members of the scientific community often pass invita-tions for review to their junior colleagues. Read this paper if you are faced with your first-time invitation and do not know where to start or how to express your opinion. If you are a seasoned reviewer, you may find some validation of what you are doing or some suggestions to improve your reviews. In any case, reviewing is an integral part of sci-entific progress, and we should all contribute to its qual-ity. The publication of research results – whether positive, neutral or negative – is an ethical imperative [1] . Review-ers must always seek ways to improve the manuscript, help the editors and readership to understand its impor-tance and generalizability [2] , and to determine if it reach-es the level of priority to be published in a given journal.
In this spirit we propose the time-honored term ‘RE-VIEW’ as an acronym for: Responsibly Evaluate and Ver-ify the findings and statistics as much as possible, Im-prove the manuscript, Educate the authors and editors, and Weigh your expert opinion against the submitted work. Reviewers benefit through this process by learning and becoming better scientists themselves. Reviewers are often challenged to deal with new thinking, novel data or innovation, and they have to critically rethink the process that the authors have gone through and judge the valid-ity of their findings.
Review Methods
Editors send invitations that inform potential review-ers about the manuscript title and contents of the abstract so that prospective reviewers can decide if the manu-script falls within their areas of expertise. Citing your particular area(s) of expertise saves editors time and spares you the disappointment of receiving requests for subjects that bring you to decline an invitation.
Any conflict of interest (COI) difficult for the editors to assess in advance is ample reason to decline to partici-pate in a review. Conducting your own research or being interested in the same area as the authors of a manuscript does not constitute a COI. What constitutes a COI is if you collaborate, or have recently collaborated, with the authors in research projects or if you, in your own judg-ment, are unable to take a balanced and unprejudiced view.
Authors can list suggested reviewers as well as those to whom the manuscript should not be sent at all. This yields
reviews of a quality similar to those that have been writ-ten by reviewers chosen by editors; however, the authors’ suggested reviewers were more likely to recommend ac-ceptance [3, 4] .
If you already reviewed a manuscript in the same or a substantially unchanged form for another journal, please inform the editor in advance and ask for his recommen-dation on how to proceed. A copy of the previous review is sometimes more suitable than a second review.
If you agreed to review a manuscript, the authors much appreciate the timely completion of the assignment, as you would do as an author awaiting a similar decision.
After considering the manuscript’s appropriateness to a given journal, determine and rate these self-explana-tory aspects: (1) methodological validity, (2) originality, (3) significance of findings, (4) style and clarity of presentation, (5) interest to readership, (6) if results support claims or conclusions, and (7) if the abstract correctly reflects the full content of the
manuscript. Start with the determination of the findings’ method-
ological validity, novelty and significance. These tasks contribute to your learning since, as you critically evalu-ate methods and analyses, you may ‘dig in’ deeper into specific methodologies, statistics, etc. Stay on top of cur-rent developments in your area of expertise. We often look up sources referenced in manuscripts as well as oth-er papers that may have eluded the authors’ attention. This helps you to gain a deeper understanding of the study’s subject and of the progress made in the area, and to offer any insights useful to the authors in revising the manuscript. Approach each manuscript with an open mind. Even if you think you know most of the research in this area, you may occasionally be surprised by an un-conventional approach. Even if you disagree with the au-thors a priori, try to objectively evaluate the strength of the data and the validity of their conclusions.
Specifically evaluate if the results support any claims or conclusions and if the abstract correctly reflects the content of the manuscript. Summarize your review re-sults in specific comments to the authors and provide a separate recommendation to the editor whether to pub-lish this manuscript or not.
Most journals, including Cerebrovascular Diseases , support a web-based review process with forms that re-viewers have to fill out. These forms often have struc-tured questions that help editors to streamline the pro-
Suggestions for Reviewing Manuscripts Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;28:243–246 245
cess and provide some journals with quantifiable results of your review.
Your suggestions about analytic methods and about statisticians with expertise in the study’s subject are al-ways appreciated. In fact, a study suggested that review-ers who had been trained in epidemiology and biostatis-tics might provide better quality reviews as judged by the authors [5] . Younger reviewers tended to provide higher quality reviews [5, 6] , and those spending up to 3 h re-viewing a manuscript [5] . However, there are no strong predictors overall to identify those who will provide higher quality reviews, and the whole process remains ill defined [6] . Contrary to expectations, an attempt to im-prove the review skills in a short workshop for active re-viewers did not yield any desirable results [7] .
The comments to the authors are the most important part of the review process. Assume you write to a colleague who will find your name at the end of the review, even though our reviewers are not mentioned that way. Some authors often believe they recognize certain composition-al styles and assume the reviewer’s name, even in error!
Be honest and communicate without humiliating the authors, no matter how wrong or insignificant the results are in your opinion. Your comments, first of all, reflect upon you and the journal which asked you to review the manuscript. Acceptance or rejection is a recommenda-tion to be communicated to the editors only.
Review Results
Start your comments to the authors with a brief sum-mary of the manuscript’s subject, strengths and key find-ings/claims. This section shows that you grasped the con-tent of the manuscript and realized its significance. Com-ment positively on the manuscript’s importance, strengths and generalizability.
The abstract is read more often than the full paper [8, 9] so please comment on its clarity.
If the manuscript seems to be in need of revision, pres-ent your specific criticisms and suggestions as a num-bered list for the authors to address. If the authors attend to all your points of criticism and suggestions, number-ing will help you to follow as you read their reply. Use a constructive tone, and if you see any deficiencies, educate the authors in a respectful manner so that, even if a man-uscript is rejected, the authors will learn from you, im-prove it and either submit a better version to another journal or conduct a better study in the future.
Always check if the research question is clearly stated. If not, ask for clarification. Examine the study’s methods in detail to verify if the approach taken is valid. Should you feel the need to ask the authors for more information, please indicate if the information has to be inserted in a revision or directed to the reviewer only in a letter of re-sponse.
Research has been done on the quality of manuscripts with masked before-and-after-review assessments [2] . The most substantial improvements were seen in the dis-cussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of con-fidence intervals and the tone of the conclusions [2] .
Some standard rewriting is sometimes needed, such as: ‘our study showed …’, as well as advice to the authors to lucidly summarize their key findings [10] . Ask the au-thors to shorten the discussion, if necessary. Discussions (like introductions) are not supposed to be extensive re-views with numerous references [10] . The discussion is also the weakest part of the manuscript, so efforts to prune any digressive and expansive conclusions should be noted.
Most authors anticipate questions about the limita-tions of their study, but if not, it is useful that they be noted in the review. An analysis of a study’s limitations says something about the authors’ and reviewers’ integ-rity and scientific approach to the problem. You may sug-gest to the editor to write a comment or an editorial alongside the accepted manuscript if you feel that the dis-cussion of the limitations, significance or impact needs to be taken further.
For those authors clearly inexperienced in manuscript composition, advice can be found in the literature [8, 9, 11] .
Sad to say, sometimes references are cited erroneously, even at times the key one(s). A tactful note of the error is usually sufficient for the embarrassed author. You are not required to check every reference but a careful look at the sources and foundation for the arguments is a must.
Journals may have blinded and structured review pol-icies [12, 13] . In this case, follow the instructions. If a journal offers an unblinded review, evaluate the fairness of your contribution to the manuscript as well as any po-tential bias. Cerebrovascular Diseases and other journals expect that the authors of a manuscript should acknowl-edge those who contributed to the study (i.e. the list of sites and researchers) and those who were helpful to the authors (i.e. funding agencies, expert consultants and volunteers). It is also prudent to have disclosures of the authors’ conflicts of interest [14] so that the study’s find-ings and interpretation can be put into perspective by the
Alexandrov /Hennerici /Norrving Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;28:243–246246
readership (this could be part of the editorial office’s re-sponsibilities with blinded reviews). As an unblinded re-viewer, you can insist upon a more detailed assessment of contributors and conflicts. Some journals also require the authors to disclose the contribution of each author to the final manuscript, and leading publishers offer criteria for who should be the authors [15] .
Final Suggestions
Partition your review into an introductory section, major comments and minor comments. This way, it is easy for the editor and authors to see where the main problems are and what needs to be done to reach the pri-ority level for publication. If revision is recommended, state that you are willing to look at the manuscript again. In re-reviewing, check if the authors have responded ad-equately to your comments and if any required changes have been included in the manuscript (and not only in the response to the reviewers). Do not bring up any new is-
sues at the time of re-reviewing (unless possibly prompt-ed by the authors’ comments); all your pertinent com-ments on the manuscript should have been made at the time of the first review.
We hope these suggestions serve to help new reviewers and refresh the willingness of those battle-hardened vet-erans to continuously serve the medical literature.
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to our colleagues and friends, editors and many experts, whose reviews and decisions we had a chance to read and occasionally disagree with. We are also grateful to the associate editor of Cerebrovascular Diseases , Dr. Jay P. Mohr, an outstanding mentor and accomplished scientific writer, for his insightful comments and encouragement.
This publication is the third installment of a series of papers aiding those involved in scientific reporting, writing and publish-ing [8, 10], and it is meant to be used with other sources available to authors [9, 11, 16, 17] and reviewers (specific instructions can be found on the websites of each journal or in any invitation to review a manuscript).
References
1 Pearn J: Publication: an ethical imperative. BMJ 1995; 310: 1313–1315.
2 Goodman SN, Berlin J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH: Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine . Ann Intern Med 1994; 121: 60–61.
3 Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N: Dif-ferences in review quality and recommenda-tions for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 2006; 295: 314–317.
4 Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS: Are review-ers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006; 4: 13.
5 Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S: What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280: 231–233.
6 Callaham ML, Tercier J: The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007; 4:e40.
7 Callaham ML, Schriger DL: Effect of struc-tured workshop training on subsequent per-formance of journal peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40: 323–328.
8 Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG: Writing good abstracts. Cerebrovasc Dis 2007; 23: 256–259.
9 European Stroke Conference: http://www.eurostroke.com/submission_instructions.html (accessed July 2, 2009).
10 Alexandrov AV: How to write a research pa-per. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004; 18; 135–138.
11 International Stroke Conference: Writing good abstracts. 2009. http://strokeconfer-ence.americanheart.org/portal/strokecon-ference/sc/writinggoodabstracts.
12 Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D: Does masking author identity im-prove peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators. JAMA 1998; 280: 240–242.
13 Schriger DL, Cooper RJ, Wears RL, Waeck-erle JF: The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manu-script quality. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 40: 334–337.
14 Holloway RG, Benesch C: When disclosures are more interesting than the evidence. Stroke 2009; 40:e44.
15 Anonymous: Policy on papers’ contributors. Nature 1999; 399: 393.
16 Pakes GE: Writing manuscripts describing clinical trials: a guide for pharmacothera-peutic researchers. Ann Pharmacother 2001; 35: 770–779.
17 Pamir MN: How to write an experimental re-search paper. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2002; 83: 109–113.
Fax +41 61 306 12 34E-Mail [email protected]
Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259 DOI: 10.1159/000098324
Writing Good Abstracts
Andrei V. Alexandrov
a Michael G. Hennerici
b
a Stroke Research Program, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Ariz. , USA; b
European Stroke Conference
state the hypothesis, rationale for the study, sample size and conclusions. Highlight the novelty of your work by carefully chosen straightforward wording. Conclusions: Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. Make sure your abstract is clear, concise and follows all rules. Show your draft to colleagues for critique, and if you are not a native English speaker show it to a person who can improve/correct your text. Remember that accepted abstracts of completed original research should be followed by published original papers – if this is not intended or fails, it may indicate an im-paired ability to succeed in scientific writing and an academ-ic career. Copyright © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
Congratulations! You joined a stroke research team, got your first data set and analyzed a database by yourself using statistical software or, preferably, together with an expert in biostatistics. You discussed data and statistics with your colleagues. Your mentor tells you that you got results worth reporting. It is time to draft an abstract. Although the recommendations below come from expe-riences in writing about stroke, they could be applied to any medical field.
Wondering where to start? You should have taken notes when you conceived the project, selected methods, analyzed data and came up with conclusions while work-
Key Words
Abstracts, stroke � Peer review � Outcome
Abstract
Introduction: Writing an abstract means to extract and sum-marize (AB – ab solutely, STR – str aightforward, ACT – act ual data presentation and interpretation). Thousands of ab-stracts are submitted to stroke conferences each year. The following suggestions may improve the chances of your work being selected for presentation, and to communicate results in the most efficient and unambiguous way. Title and
Structure: Make the title dynamic and informative, rather than descriptive. Structure the abstract following the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle for your future original paper where background would be-come Introduction and conclusions would enter Discussion. Select the appropriate category for submission carefully. This determines which experts grade the abstract and the session where your competitors represent their work. If se-lected appropriately, your abstract is more likely to be grad-ed by peers with similar interests and familiarity with your work or field. Methods should describe the study design and tools of data acquisition shortly, not data. Results: Provide data that answer the research question. Describe most im-portant data with numbers and statistics. Make your point with data, not speculations and opinions. Abbreviations should be avoided and only be used after they have been spelled out or defined. Common mistakes include failure to
Received: December 6, 2006 Accepted: December 6, 2006 Published online: December 29, 2006
Dr. A.V. Alexandrov, DirectorStroke Research and Neurosonology Program, Barrow Neurological InstituteSuite 300 Neurology, 500 West Thomas RdPhoenix, AZ 85013 (USA)E-Mail [email protected]
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel1015–9770/07/0234–0256$23.50/0
Accessible online at:www.karger.com/ced
AB-STR-ACT Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259 257
ing with your mentor and co-authors in the past several months. If not, ask your mentor again what the research question was, why the project is important, how subjects and methods were selected, why certain tools of analysis were most appropriate, and what the meaning of the re-sults is. And write these thoughts down, particularly if you are new to research or trying to multi-task on sev-eral projects.
Think about the title of your abstract since it sells your submission. Make the title dynamic and conclusive, rath-er than descriptive. Try to avoid questions in the title, unless the issue remains unsettled or you came up with a clear answer. Think about the ‘take home’ message you’d like to deliver with your abstract.
Writing an abstract means to extract and summarize (think AB – ab solutely, STR – str aightforward, ACT – ac-t ual data presentation and interpretation). Introductory statements sum up what is known or remains unsettled in the field, and a goal of your study. Try to compress these messages into one or two sentences. Thousands of abstracts are submitted to stroke conferences each year. Follow the European Stroke Conference [1] or the Amer-ican Stroke Association recommendations [2] , and you may improve the chances of your work being selected for presentation. Preparation of conference abstracts is main-ly a responsibility of the researcher with virtually no pos-sibilities for a rater of conference abstracts to check for data quality (there is nothing else available, no manu-script). Abstracts linked to scientific papers are peer re-viewed, and it is possible to assess if the abstract ade-quately reflects what is stated and concluded in the man-uscript body. Although this paper mainly provides advice how to prepare a conference abstract, similar principles can be applied to drafting abstracts for original paper submissions, though format and requirements may differ between peer-reviewed journals. In any case, the goal is to report and convey research findings in the most effi-cient and unambiguous way.
All authors must have contributed to the work, ap-proved the text and given permission to submit the ab-stract including copyrights to the conference publishers. The presenting authors should be named first – if the ab-stract is submitted for oral presentation, this person should be able to discuss your contribution in a lively dis-cussion – both from his knowledge of the subject as well as the conference language. Carefully consider specific regulations made by the conference organizers which are different for many meetings in style and context. If you do not adhere to these rules, your submission is at high risk to fail.
Methods
Various scientific conferences may provide different rules re-garding the recommended structure of abstract submission. Keep in mind that whatever the rules are, you must follow up the con-ference abstract with an original manuscript submission. We view the conference abstract and the final original manuscript abstract as part of the same process. So, try to make the first one as good as the final one.
Unstructured abstracts challenge quick understanding what was accomplished in the project. A structured abstract has advan-tages [3, 4] and can include Introduction (or Background and Purpose), Methods, Results and Conclusions. This closely follows the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle introduced early in the 20th century [4] and currently used in about two thirds of structured abstracts published in ma-jor medical journals [5, 6] . This format is recommended for orig-inal papers [7, 8] where D stands for discussion instead of conclu-sions in your abstract. Even if structured abstracts could appear longer, they are considered more informative and judged to be clearer by their readers [9] .
When drafting the first sections of the abstract, think about where you are going with this, i.e. key results and conclusions. Ask your mentor and co-authors for suggestions. Avoid writing points for discussion in your abstract, or statements like ‘this is the first study to demonstrate …’. Chances are that ten other groups are doing similar projects and five more have already presented their results at meetings you did not attend. To overcome the initial ‘writer’s cramp’, i.e. the mental inability to start scientific writing, you may download an abstract on a similar subject or comparable study design that was published in proceedings of a previous stroke conference or a peer-reviewed paper. Abstracts presented at major international meetings are generally of high quality since they passed competitive review with less than 30% chance of ac-ceptance. Look how previous authors described their subjects and methods, and follow the lead: after all, imitation is the best form of flattery. Add specifics of your patient population so that re-viewers can understand the novelty or applicability of your find-ings. Be specific, yet brief. Remember, space (number of words or characters allowed) is limited and so is the readers’ and reviewer’s attention span. Reviewers often have to rate 1 100 abstracts, not all are native English speakers and they appreciate a clear, simple and straightforward style strengthening the originality of your work and statistically sound presentation of the results reported.
State the type of study conducted, i.e. retrospective analysis, case series, cohort, phase I or II clinical trial. Describe subject se-lection criteria and data collection tools concisely, yet with enough details for peers to understand what was done. There is no need to add a literature reference that describes study methods; it is often not even wanted. As many conferences tend to avoid peer reviewer’s bias, anonymous reviews are common (e.g. for many years for the European Stroke Conference). Thus, any hints at the organization submitting the abstract are considered unfair and against the rules. Avoid presenting actual data in this section, i.e. number of subjects and their baseline characteristics. Presenta-tion of data belongs to the Results section. Instead, describe scales or methods used for assessment and recruitment as well as out-comes or dependent variables.
Alexandrov /Hennerici
Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259258
Protection of research subjects is implied, yet often omitted in abstracts due to space limitations. You have to have a local ethics committee approval before study initiation. With abstract re-ports, it is assumed that this is the case. When you present data at a meeting, clearly mention local ethics or institutional review board approval and informed consent signed by participants for human studies.
The most important factors for abstract acceptance to a presti-gious and competitive meeting are the quality, novelty, reliability and scientific or clinical importance of your work. Also, a bias was noted that reviewers may favor well-written abstracts like those submitted from the USA or English-speaking countries [10] , so if you are not a native English-speaking person, show your draft to those who can edit spelling, grammar and style. Clearly state the type of study design that largely implies the choice of statistical analysis tools and saves space for the following key section.
Results
Your results are the most important part of the ab-stract. Present them clearly, avoid long and confusing sen-tences, and follow simple logics. Start here by describing your study subjects with actual numbers for study demo-graphics. Then lead the reader to the main findings.
Accurate presentation of data in the abstract is ex-tremely important. A recent survey of 243 abstracts for original research articles published in selected pharma-cological journal issues identified 25% of abstracts con-taining omissions, a third containing either an omission or inaccuracy with a total of about 60% of abstracts clas-sified as deficient in terms of accurate data reporting [11] . Another group suggested the need for journals to include in their editing processes specific and detailed attention to abstracts [12] .
There are several options how to present data. If two or more groups of subjects were studied, present data consistently so that you can save space on repeating which finding was seen in which group. Name groups clearly, i.e. target or controls, or A, B and C for brevity. If too many analyses were generated, present only key data points and leave the rest for writing a paper. For example, if pretreatment characteristics of patients in a controlled clinical trial were similar between the groups, there is no need to show all of them for each group. Overall key me-dian or mean values would suffice with a statement NS, i.e. nonsignificant.
A table or figure can be uploaded with electronic ab-stract submission. Include a table or figure only if data presentation is markedly improved this way; however, if understanding the figures/table takes more time than reading the abstract, you should not consider them. If you
choose to do so, select the most representative data set that delivers the key message or summarizes most impor-tant data and leaves space for other details in the text.
Discuss results with your mentor and co-authors since this internal review will help to determine if generated data were sufficient to answer the research question in the abstract. Most importantly, stay focused by including data relevant to the research question. Packing one abstract with data is better than splitting data and submitting two or three weaker abstracts from the same data set.
Avoid statements like ‘two groups were significantly different’. Instead, show absolute numbers and percent-ages. Then add p values, coefficients, ratios and confi-dence intervals after these absolute numbers so that re-viewers can judge the significance of observations. Men-tion statistical tests if space permits. Details of statistical analysis are usually left to the research paper and presen-tation at a meeting. Abstracts without such data are given low priority! Make your point with data, not arguments. While drawing conclusions from your results, remember that statistically significant difference does not necessar-ily translate into clinically significant difference.
Conclusions
Your conclusions should be straightforward, brief and specific to your observations. Quite often they consist of two sentences. The first concisely summarizes the main findings, and the last states interpretation or clinical im-plications. Readers and reviewers commonly check the title and, if become interested, skip right to the last sen-tences before they read the full abstract in detail.
Clear formulation of conclusions attests to your ability to interpret data and understand the evidence-based ap-proach. If space permits, you may begin with an opening statement: ‘Our study showed …’ and lucidly summarize your study findings. Avoid repeating data. There is no reason to stress how novel or terrific your results are – let them speak for themselves. On the contrary, there is also no need to say that ‘further research is needed’. Scientists never stop explorations, even if a subject is considered written in stone.
Do not overestimate the importance of your research findings. Avoid broad claims and strong statements since even pioneer breakthrough studies require independent confirmation. Instead, be specific and focused on your study findings and what they mean. There is no need to discuss findings by others in this section, or what ques-tions remain unsettled. Conclusions logically connect the
AB-STR-ACT Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256–259 259
title, study methods and results all together to deliver the ‘take home’ message.
Your abstract is the first step towards publication, communication and dissemination of research results that is imperative for advancement of science [13] . The scientific community reads more abstracts than full-text papers since simply there is not enough time to read all published papers. Instead, scientists screen abstracts and select which papers are essential to read in full text. Pro-viding a clear, accurate and lucid abstract would help to get your research noticed.
Several clinical specialties noticed that 60–75% of ab-stracts presented at national meetings are not followed by publication of original papers [14–16] . Although not di-rectly applicable to major stroke conferences, a survey of orthopedic investigators who had not had a full-text ar-ticle published after presenting the abstract at a national meeting showed that the failure to publish was due to one of three main reasons: 1 investigators did not have enough time to prepare a
manuscript for publication (the reason most frequent-ly given);
2 almost one third of the studies that had not been sub-mitted for publication were ongoing;
3 relationships with co-authors sometimes presented a barrier to final publication [16] . The authors concluded that thorough preparation be-
fore the study and the establishment of stricter guidelines
to limit presentations of preliminary data at major meet-ings may improve publication rates [16] . Also, there is a publication bias that often only positive findings get pub-lished, and negative results are less likely to be accepted as original papers, although they are needed to avoid mis-takes in interpreting positive studies or planning new tri-als.
Finally, remember that shortly after submission of your abstract, your mentor should ask you to draft a re-search paper regardless whether the abstract is going to be accepted or not. Although conferences may accept work-in-progress, interim reports and other communi-cations that are not suitable for original papers, complet-ed original research has to be communicated with more than a conference abstract. Successful researchers follow abstracts with original paper submission to peer-re-viewed journals. Failure to do so may result in problems with your academic career. Advice on how to write a re-search paper is available [7, 8, 17] . The greatest risk here is not trying to write at all.
Acknowledgements
We owe to our trainees and colleagues who struggled with sci-entific writing – their efforts, frustration and unpublished works provided observations shared in this manuscript. A.V.A. is also indebted to Dr. John W. Norris who taught him first lessons in scientific writing.
References
1 http://www.eurostroke.org/esc_abstracts.htm.
2 http://strokeconference.americanheart.org/portal/strokeconference/sc/writinggoodab-stracts.
3 Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Ilersich AL, Einarson TR: Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Associa-tion. CMAJ 1994; 150: 1611–1615.
4 Wong HL, Truong D, Mahamed A, Davidian C, Rana Z, Einarson TR: Quality of struc-tured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association: a 10-year follow-up study. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21: 467–473.
5 Sollaci LB, Pereira MG: The introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey. J Med Libr As-soc 2004; 92: 364–367.
6 Nakayama T, Hirai N, Yamazaki, Naito M: Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. J Med Libr Assoc 2005; 93: 237–242.
7 Pakes GE: Writing manuscripts describing clinical trials: a guide for pharmacothera-peutic researchers. Ann Pharmacother 2001;
35: 770–779. 8 Pamir MN: How to write an experimental
research paper. Acta Neurochir 2002; 83(sup-pl):109–113.
9 Hartley J: Applying ergonomics to Applied Ergonomics: using structured abstracts. Appl Ergon 1999; 30: 535–541.
10 Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM: Effect of blind-ed peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006; 295: 1675–1680.
11 Ward LG, Kedrach MG, Price SO: Accuracy of abstract for original research articles in pharmacy journals. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38: 1173–1177.
12 Pitkin RM, Branagan MA: Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing spe-cific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 280: 267–269.
13 Pearn J: Publication: an ethical imperative. BMJ 1995; 310: 1313–1315.
14 Li SF, Umemoto T, Crosley P, Cassidy C: SAEM abstracts to articles: 1997 and 1999–2001. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 985–987.
15 Eloubeidi MA, Wade SB, Provenzale D: Fac-tors associated with acceptance and full pub-lication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form. Gastrointest En-dosc 2001; 53: 275–282.
16 Sprague S, Bhandari M, Deveraux PJ, Swiont-kowski MF, Tornetta P 3rd, Cook DJ, Dirschl D, Schemitsch EH, Guyatt GH: Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85A:158–163.
17 Alexandrov AV: How to write a research pa-per. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004; 18: 135–138.
E-Mail [email protected]/ced
Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202–208 DOI: 10.1159/000346077
How to Prepare and Deliver a Scientific Presentation Teaching Course Presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012
Andrei V. Alexandrov a Michael G. Hennerici b
a Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of Alabama Hospital, Birmingham, Ala. , USA; b Department of Neurology, UniversitätsMedizin Mannheim UMM, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim , Germany
talk or when standing by your poster, always think clearly, have a logical plan, gain audience attention, make them in-terested in your subject, excite their own thinking about the problem, listen to questions and carefully weigh the evi-dence that would justify the punch-line. Conclusions: Rank scientific evidence in your presentation appropriately. What may seem obvious may turn erroneous or more complex. Rehearse your presentation before you deliver it at a confer-ence. Challenge yourself to dry runs with your most criti-cally thinking colleagues. When the time comes, ace it with a clear mind, precise execution and fund of knowledge.
Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
Introduction
Over time communication standards between scientists have evolved along with improved scientific method, increasing scrutiny of analyses and upholding to the highest level of evidence anything we call research. Scientific presentation is a professional way of sharing your observation, introducing a hypothesis, demon-strating and interpreting the results of a study, or summarizing what has been learned or is to be studied on the subject. Professional presentations help dissemi-nate research, make peers aware of novel approaches, findings or problems. These presentations make confer-ences memorable for both presenters and the audience. Anyone can recall the most exciting and most boring,
Key Words
Science · Presentation · Quality
Abstract
Background: A scientific presentation is a professional way to share your observation, introduce a hypothesis, demon-strate and interpret the results of a study, or summarize what is learned or to be studied on the subject. Presenta-
tion Methods: Commonly, presentations at major confer-ences include podium (oral, platform), poster or lecture, and if selected one should be prepared to PRESENT: P lan from the start (place integral parts of the presentation in logical sequence); R educe the amount of text and visual aids to the bare minimum; E lucidate (clarify) methods; S ummarize re-sults and key messages; E ffectively deliver; N ote all short-comings, and T ransform your own and the current thinking of others. We provide tips on how to achieve this. Presenta-
tion Results: After disclosing conflicts, if applicable, start with a brief summary of what is known and why it is required to investigate the subject. State the research question or the purpose of the lecture. For original presentations follow a structure: Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusions. In-vest a sufficient amount of time or poster space in describ-ing the study methods. Clearly organize and deliver the re-sults or synopsis of relevant studies. Include absolute num-bers and simple statistics before showing advanced analyses. Remember to present one point at a time. Stay fo-cused. Discuss study limitations. In a lecture or a podium
Received: October 5, 2012 Accepted: November 22, 2012 Published online: March 5, 2013
Dr. A. Alexandrov Director Comprehensive Stroke Center UAB Hospital RWUH M226, 619 19th Street South Birmingham, AL 35249 (USA) E-Mail avalexandrov @ att.net
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel1015–9770/13/0353–0202$38.00/0
How To Prepare and Deliver a Scientific Presentation
Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202–208DOI: 10.1159/000346077
203
the most clear and most convoluted, the most ‘ seriously?!’ and the most ‘wow!!’ presentations. Most presentations, however, fall in the in-between level of ‘so what?’, ‘I did not quite get it …’, or ‘maybe’. This means that all the work the authors have put in did not result in a paradigm shift, advancement, or even ‘well, this is good to know’ kind of an impact. We struggle to shape up our young presenters to make their science clear and visible, their presence known and their own networks grow.
Having initially struggled in preparing and delivering presentations ourselves, and having seen the many baby steps of our trainees now accomplished or shy of a track record, we have put together these suggestions on how to start, organize and accomplish what at first sight looks like a daunting task: presenting in front of people, many of whom may have expertise way beyond your own or who are scrutinizing every bit of data and ready to shred any evidence you might have to pieces. Unfortunately, there is no other way to advance science and become rec-ognized than to survive this campaign from conception of a project to publication. This campaign has its own (often interim and hopefully not singular) culmination in a scientific presentation. This presentation also comes with question and answer sessions and importantly, with you and the audience possibly coming out of it with new messages, new thinking and even energy for break-throughs, no matter how small or large the leap would be. So let’s explore how to prepare and deliver a scientific presentation.
Presentation Methods
Currently, the common types of presentations at ma-jor conferences include podium (oral, platform), poster or lecture. Although seemingly different and at times some being more desirable over others, they all share the same prerequisites and challenges for successful execution. We will examine common threads and identify unique as-pects of each type of these presentations. However, the first prerequisite for any scientific presentation (success-ful or not) is you, the presenter.
An effective presenter should have led the study, par-ticipated in the analysis and drafting of the abstract and manuscript, i.e. the presenter should know the subject of his or her talk inside out. One should therefore be pre-pared to PRESENT:
P lan from the start (place integral parts of the presen-tation in logical sequence);
R educe the amount of text and visual aids to the bare minimum; E lucidate (clarify) methods; S ummarize results and key messages; E ffectively deliver; N ote all shortcomings, and T ransform your own and the current thinking of others. So, as the scuba-diving instructors say: plan the dive,
and dive the plan. The most important parts of scientific presentations should follow the logic of delivering the key messages. For the original presentations (platforms or posters), it is easy to simply follow the accepted abstracts, most often structured following the IMRaD principle: In-troduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (Conclu-sions).
Lecture format, content and logical flow of informa-tion often depend on the topic choice, which should be appropriate to the level of audience [1] , time allotment and the target audience. Most competitive conferences offer short times even for invited lecturers as experts are expected to demonstrate cutting edge science, which as-sumes that the audience is already knowledgeable and the expert is capable of delivering information that sparks new thinking. The suggestion here to both novice and experienced speakers is to quickly summarize why the subject of presentation is important (catch audience attention [2, 3] ), where we are now (show the landscape of completed studies that established the common knowledge or conundrums, equipoise, etc.) and to move then to the latest advancements (this may include just-in publications, ongoing or planned future research or the most provocative take on the evidence out there).
Turning back to original presentations, advice is avail-able on how to write abstracts following the IMRaD prin-ciple [4] and how to draft subsequent manuscripts [5] . We cannot stress enough the need to quickly follow-up the abstract submission with drafting the full manuscript. If the authors complete a manuscript before the presenta-tion at a conference, the presenter will have a luxury of material to work with to compile either a set of slides for the podium or text and illustrations for the poster. If a manuscript was drafted and reviewed by coauthors, the challenge for a presenter is going to be a good one: trim down most sentences as both slides and posters benefit from short statements (not even full sentences) and large font sizes so that text can be easily read from a distance. Put yourself into the audience: your slides should be read-able from the last row of a large room or a huge ballroom and your poster should be still readable from at least 2 m.
Alexandrov /Hennerici Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202–208DOI: 10.1159/000346077
204
The latter will allow better poster viewing by several peo-ple during guided poster tours or when a small group gathers spontaneously to view it.
This logically brings us to the second step: use bare minimum of any type of information to deliver your presentation. Minimum text, minimum lines, minimum images, graphs, i.e. provide only the essential informa-tion as the audience attention span is short. Brevity, how-ever, should not compromise quality: you should always stride to have the highest quality visual aids since these leave an impression on the audience [6] and good quality graphics are attributes of effective presentations [3] .
At the same time, we cannot overemphasize the need to stick to time limits set for a specific presentation. Pre-senters should test their presentation in ‘real life’ at home to their friends or at work in front of colleagues and ask for criticism. It is better to get criticism from members of the department (including your boss) than in a huge au-ditorium. Use a simple rule: an average talking time is 1 min per slide in oral presentations. You can then see how little you really can allocate to each slide if you load your talk with the most complicated visual presentation of data.
Let’s go to the specifics. The ‘Introduction’ slide usu-ally includes a very brief description of background and should explicitly state the research question. Call it ‘In-troduction and Study Purpose’. Adding a separate slide for study aims lengthens the talk. Fewer slides also reduce the chance of making an error when advancing them on the podium that can send presenters into further time deficit and stress, a commonplace even with those who know how to right-click.
Methods should have bullet points, not necessarily full sentences since you will be speaking over slides project-ing or in front of the poster to connect brief statements showing behind you. The basic rule is not to read your slides or poster, nor tell the audience to read what the slide or poster says. Think of your slides or display material as a reminder to yourself of what you are supposed to say in detail and leave the noncritical words out of the slide and off the poster as it is an even easier source to pack with unreadable information. When you develop a presenta-tion imagine you are a novice to the field who would like to be educated and taken on a journey while seeing and hearing the presentation. What can I learn in these few minutes? As the presenter, also think ‘what can I pass to the audience in these few minutes?’ Further advice on how to plan, focus and arrange material to support key messages is available [7, 8] .
Results are the key part of any scientific presentation, podium, poster or lecture, and the most time, space and careful ascertainment should be allotted to this section as is necessary and feasible. It is vital to pack your presenta-tion with data that support your key messages. Remem-ber, a picture is worth a thousand words but show only quint-essential images or graphs. If appropriate include statistics and make this easy in structure, i.e. use formats or values known by everybody such as odds ratios, Ka-plan Meier curves, etc. (do not forget to include these data in the abstract as abstracts without data, numbers and calculations are often low rated or rejected). After pre-senting data, show what you think of that or what the limitations are since you thought more about this than the audience, at least through preparation of your own presentation.
The last two concluding paragraphs (poster), com-ments (this section of a lecture), or slides (podium) are supposed to cover study limitations and conclusions. These should be the most carefully thought through, strategically worded and evidence-based part of your presentation. Your reputation depends on the quality of data interpretation. Also, think about a take-home mes-sage with the main message you want to be remembered. When practicing your presentations, deliver your talk to your nonmedical spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend: by the end of your presentation he or she should be able to re-peat the take home message with best-prepared presenta-tions.
After conclusions, an ‘Acknowledgements’ slide is nice to have at the end showing whom you are grateful to, but it will not rescue a hopeless presentation. The ‘thanks to my colleagues’ should not come at the expense of time, quality and content of your scientific presentation. There is no need to thank multiple people like they often do at the Oscars. You have to rationally consider who and when to acknowledge if their functions were important to your work but they were not listed among coauthors. If you received funding to support your work, it is very impor-tant where appropriate or at the end of the presentation to acknowledge your sponsors or grant providers (such as NIH Institute and grant number, MRC grant, INSERM or DFG labels, etc.). The higher the scientific level of the grant donors, the more your presentation will be recog-nized.
While preparing any part of your presentation, re-mind yourself to check whether the included material is any good and worthy of inclusion. You can simply ask, ‘am I wasting time during the oral presentation or space in the poster by including this and that?’ The answer lies
How To Prepare and Deliver a Scientific Presentation
Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202–208DOI: 10.1159/000346077
205
in checking if this material is directly related to the study aim, data obtained, or in support of conclusions drawn.
Table 1 summarizes how you should structure the se-quence of slides for the podium presentation. If you are only given 8 min to present + 2 min for questions (10 min total), you can see that with 8 mandatory slides you are already at the limit of 1 min per slide. In due course, we will give you tips on how to reallocate time within your presentation to expand the Methods and, most impor-tantly, the Results section as needed.
Always clarify study methods. Posters offer a greater freedom since you can show details of your experimental setup or the methodology of your study design. A podi-um presentation often requires abbreviated mention of key elements of design, scales, inclusion/exclusion crite-
ria, intervention or dependent variables and outcomes. This requires diligent work with your coauthors and bio-statisticians to make sure that you are brief but clear and sufficient.
A well-assembled Methods section will lead to a short-er Results summary since your clear statement of the study aim and key methodology logically leads to audi-ence anticipation of the primary end-point findings. There are key messages and delivered data points that distinguish effective and clear presentations from those resulting in confusion and further guesswork.
Delivering a Presentation
Effective presenters capture audience attention and stay focused on key messages [1–3, 6–8] . A study was per-formed at scientific conferences asking reviewers to iden-tify the best features of effective presentations [3]. The most frequent comments on best features of presenta-tions with respect to ‘content’ were identifying a key con-cept (43% of presentations) and relevance (43%). Best fea-tures in evaluations of ‘slides’ were clarity (50%), graphics (27.3%) and readability of the text and font size (23%). Finally, best features in ‘presentation style’ were clarity (59%), pace (52%), voice (48%), engaging with the audi-ence (43%), addressing questions (34%) and eye contact (28%) [3] .
Here are some tips on how to avoid forcing yourself to rush during a talk. Before you start (usually in the inter-mission or just before your session) familiarize yourself with the podium and learn how to advance slides and operate the pointer or point with the mouse. If you stum-ble at the beginning, you start your presentation with a time deficit.
Get to the podium while you are being introduced and start right away (it is the responsibility of the moderator to properly announce you, your team and the title of the talk and it is the responsibility of the conference organiz-ers to have your title slide showing during the modera-tor’s announcement). Do not read or repeat your study title. Thank the moderators and while the title slide is showing you may consider briefly thanking your coau-thors/mentor here in just a few seconds.
Show the ‘Conflicts of Interest’ slide next and disclose if any conflicts are related to the study subject. If they ex-ist, conflicts should be acknowledged briefly but clearly. Do not show a slide with several conflicts and tell the au-dience ‘here are my conflicts’ and switch to the next slide. It is important to simply say, ‘pertinent to this study I have
Table 1. Basic structure for a podium presentation of an original paper
Slide Comment
1. Title slide List the full title of your project, last names and initials of all listed coauthors and affiliation(s).
2. Conflicts Most competitive conferences now require disclosure or conflicts such as unapproved/off-label use and personal conflicts of interest in regards to the research subject – follow tem-plates that organizers usually provide.
3. Introduction Brief bullet points about background.State clearly the aim of the study or research question.
4. Methods One-line, brief bullet points.No more than 10 lines per slide (the fewer the better – this enlarges font size); add more slides if necessary.
5. Results Brief lines of numeric data.No more than 10 lines per slide.Use graphs or images with high resolution and large axis value/numbers; add more slides if necessary.
6. Studylimitations
Mention these instead of a general ‘Discussion’ slide – most critical questions after the talk point to study limitations – so be open about them to avoid negative discussion after the presentation.
7. Conclusions Brief statements outlining the most important key messages.
8. Acknowledge-ments
Include this slide if you need to thank funding agencies and sources as well as people who were not listed as coauthors. If you wish to thank someone among coauthors, do so briefly while showing the title slide.
Alexandrov /Hennerici Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202–208DOI: 10.1159/000346077
206
…’ or ‘this study includes an off-label or investigational use of …’. Now you are logically ready to turn to the sub-ject of your presentation.
Start with a brief summary of what is known and why is it important to investigate the subject. This introduces the audience to the subject of research and starts the flow of logic. If you are facing a challenge to present a complex study within in a short allotted period of time (such as 8 min for podium or a just a few minutes during a guided poster tour), do not waste time. You may cut to the chase and simply say why you did the study. Coming with straight forward messages, which are au-thentic and concerned about the scientific question, gets you more credit with the audience than careful orches-tration of a perceived equipoise. However, we have di-gressed.
For an effective message delivery, identify two people towards opposite far ends of the audience and speak as if you are personally talking to one of them at a time and alternate between them. If lights shining in your face are too bright, still look towards the back of the room (or from time to time directly into the camera if your talk is being shown on monitors in a large ballroom) and do not bury your head into the podium or notes that you might have brought with you. The nonverbal part of any presen-tation and the presenter’s body language are also impor-tant [6] . At all cost avoid bringing notes with you to any scientific presentation since you should have practiced your talk enough to remember it or you should be famil-iar with the subject of your lecture to the point that even if you have just been woken up, you can still maintain an intelligent conversation. Do not count on ‘it will come to me’ – practice your talk! Further advice on effective pre-senting skill is available [2] .
Remember that at international conferences many at-tendees are not native English-speaking people. Thus speak slowly and train your voice for best possible pro-nunciation! This recommendation is applicable to natives of English-speaking countries too. Native English speak-ers from the UK, Commonwealth countries and the USA tend to speak fast, with a variety of accents that interna-tional audiences may not understand easily while the in-terpreters may not be able to keep up. When speaking, do not turn away from the audience and look at your slide projection on the main screen or at your poster all the time. If it is necessary to remind yourself what to talk about next, advance the slide, briefly glance at it, turn to the audience and continue your presentation. Turn to your slide again only if you have to use a laser pointer or a mouse on the computer screen. Do so briefly, underline
the important finding, point to the key part of an image and avoid long circular pointer motions around the whole text line or big areas of graphic illustrations. It is distract-ing. Try to use the pointer only when necessary and do not read your slides with the pointer constantly aiming at where you are reading.
When presenting your methods, clearly state the type of study, e.g. retrospective analysis, case series, cohort or controlled trials, etc., and describe patient in-clusion/exclusion criteria. If too numerous, only list the major ones. As an example, in a clinical trial of a fibri-nolytic agent the list of exclusion criteria could be very extensive, so how can you present this on a dime? Your slide should focus on the key inclusion criteria since a patient who did not have those was obviously excluded, and an audience at a stroke conference is generally famil-iar with multiple exclusion criteria for tissue plasmino-gen activator treatment. So, your slide or poster may have the following in it (highlighted in bold ) to which you may add the plain text in your (limited) verbal state-ments:
Study Methods
Our Major Inclusion Criteria: were • total Pre-treatment NIHSS score >6 points • Presence of mismatch on MRI determined by
(EPTITHET) trial criteria • Age <80 years and • Time from symptom onset <8 h
After that, you may omit including a slide with the long list of exclusions in favor of time. If there is a specific contraindication new to the treatment agent in your study, you could say ‘in addition to well-known contraindications for systemic thrombolysis, patients were excluded if they had …’ at the end of showing the ‘Major Inclusion Criteria’ slide as shown above. Simi-larly, in a poster, list only the most relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria and walk the audience through the methods without stumbling on too many detail disclosures. The audience will lose track of where you are going.
It is important to keep a balance between sufficient disclosure of study methods and the length of this part of your presentation. It is always helpful if you have a prior study that used a similar or from which you developed your methodology that has already been published – you may show a reference to this study and move on faster without sacrificing the quality. For example, ‘ultrasound
How To Prepare and Deliver a Scientific Presentation
Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202–208DOI: 10.1159/000346077
207
tests were done by experienced sonographers using a pre-viously published standard protocol’, ‘CT scans were read independently using the ASPECTS score’, and ‘sICH was defined by the SITS-MOST criteria’. Say this while show-ing or pointing to the line and published source reference on your visual aid.
Clearly organize and deliver the Results section. In-clude absolute numbers and simple statistics before show-ing advanced analyses. Remember not to show data in Methods and equally so do not introduce new methods when presenting Results. As a rule, describe characteris-tics of the general study population or balance/imbalanc-es between target and control groups. Follow this by a slide that shows the primary end-point findings or obser-vations that directly address the study aim or research question. This follows the logic of a scientific presenta-tion and will help you avoid deviations to side observa-tions no matter how unexpected or valuable they seem. Stay the course, address the main question first and only then show additional findings. When presenting a poster, point to the area where the key results are displayed. Un-like a slide presentation or lecture where the audience is forced to see one slide at a time, busy posters could be distracting. Posters that are heavily packed with graphs, images, tables and text are often difficult to follow during a brief guided poster presentation tour. It is the presenter’s responsibility to drive the audience attention to key re-sults in a logical sequence. When you present a graph, start by telling the audience what is shown and in what units on each access, and briefly point to the numbers on each axis.
Remember to present one point at a time. It makes common sense but sometimes may be difficult to follow if complex experiments or studies with multiple con-founding variables have to be navigated through a brief presentation. Do not lose sight of your original research question or the objective of your lecture. Remember what you have shown so far, and what logically should be shown next. If you are pressed on time or made a mistake while advancing slides, take a deep breath and relax. Clear state of mind will buy you time. Racing thoughts such as ‘I have to cover that and that, and oh, that too’ are not helpful. Dry runs, or practice presentations are essen-tial for you to master the material that you need to pres-ent.
After finishing the Results part of your presentation, remember not to introduce more new results in Discus-sion and Conclusions. That surprise is hard for the audi-ence to process. If you’d like to reemphasize the main finding, use the following suggestion. Let’s say your goal
was to show the prevalence of a new syndrome in your study population and you found it to be 24% (your pri-mary research question). Unexpectedly, you also found that patients with this syndrome have an increased risk of dying (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.23–4.34). These numbers and statistics obviously belong to the Results section. How-ever, you want to stress in your conclusion once again how important your finding is. You can present it as fol-lows: ‘Conclusions: nearly a quarter of stroke patients can be affected by this new syndrome and, if present, it dou-bles the patient chance of dying in hospital’. This recaps the main finding and makes practical interpretation of the relative risk estimate.
Before you jump into Conclusions, however, we always encourage presenters to note and openly discuss current study limitations. This improves your own assessment for biases and ranking of the level of obtained evidence. If you do not disclose the obvious study limitations, you will most likely receive questions after your presentation that will point to these shortcomings. Thus, instead of a positive discussion of how your study advances our knowledge, the discussion with the audience will focus on shortcomings and the key message may be lost with the negative audience response. Unlike Twitter TM or fu-ture media-based quick popularity scores, science can only advance when it endures the highest scrutiny (even though in the future presenters may be concurrently judged by the audience as our technologies improve). Re-gardless, if you are a good scientist, prepare yourself to stand the ground if the evidence is behind you. Be proac-tive, acknowledge study limitations and how you at-tempted to control for biases, etc.
In a lecture or a podium talk or when standing by your poster, always think clearly, have a logical plan for presentation parts that should be covered next, gain au-dience attention, make them interested in your subject, excite their own thinking about the problem, listen to questions and carefully weigh the evidence that would justify the punch-line. This will support your conclu-sions!
With posters, we often see a Discussion section but no conclusions listed, or they are listed in the abstract but not in the poster itself. This will lead to an obvious ques-tion after you stop presenting: ‘So, what is your take on this?’ Our advice is, have your conclusions listed and be prepared to defend them point-by-point as the question and answer part could be challenging. If you do not un-derstand the question, ask for clarification rather than talk nonsense.
Alexandrov /Hennerici Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202–208DOI: 10.1159/000346077
208
Discussion: Transform!
To arrive at the right conclusions, you have to rank scientific evidence in your presentation appropriately. What may seem obvious may turn erroneous or more complex at a closer look by experts. Helpful hints here include you maintaining careful documentation while you are conceiving the project, designing it with your col-leagues and consulting with a biostatistician on all steps taken in ascertaining the study population, interven-tions, end-point data collection and bias verification. Put all methodological issues against your findings and this will give you an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of your study. Preparing and delivering your presentation is a great experience to see if your knowledge and gained expertise stand up to peer scrutiny.
Rehearse your presentation before you deliver it at a conference. Challenge yourself to dry runs with your most critically thinking colleagues. Quite often, it is not
the presentation itself but these questions, comments and subsequent late night debates with your colleagues that bring new thinking, advance our understanding and spark new ideas. This is the chance to transform your own current thinking and that of your peers. Think about your upcoming presentation, whether it is a podium, poster or lecture, as an opportunity, a launch pad, a re-ward for the hard work you did to bring this project to the attention of the scientific community.
When time comes, ace it with a clear mind, precise execution and fund of knowledge.
Acknowledgements
Before his first oral presentation in English, Dr. Alexandrov was nervous and asked his mentor, Dr. John W. Norris, for a dry run. Dr. Norris generously came to listen to him at 10 p.m. the night before, and Dr. Alexandrov survived his talk.
References
1 Spinler SA: How to prepare and deliver phar-macy presentations. Am J Hosp Pharm 1991; 48: 1730–1738.
2 Garon JE: Presentation skills for the reluc-tant speaker. Clin Lab Manage Rev 1999; 13: 372–385.
3 Estrada CA, Patel SR, Talente G, Kraemer S: The 10-minute oral presentation: what should I focus on? Am J Med Sci 2005; 329: 306–309.
4 Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG: Writing good abstracts. Cerebrovascular Dis 2007; 23: 256–259.
5 Alexandrov AV: How to write a research pa-per. Cerebrovascular Dis 2004; 18: 135–138.
6 Mayer K: Fundamentals of surgical research course: research presentations. J Surg Res 2005; 128: 174–177.
7 Thompson WM, Mitchell RL, Halvorsen RA Jr, Foster WL Jr, Roberts L: Scientific presen-tations: what to do and what not to do. Invest Radiol 1987; 22: 244–245.
8 Collins J: Education techniques for lifelong learning: giving a PowerPoint presentation: the art of communicating effectively. Radio-graphics 2004; 24: 1185–1192.
Selected Papers www.karger.com
S. KargerMedical and Scientific PublishersBasel . Freiburg . Paris . London . New York . Chennai . New Delhi . Bangkok . Beijing . Shanghai . Tokyo . Kuala Lumpur . Singapore . Sydney
Preface
How to Write a Research PaperCerebrovasc Dis 2004;18:135-138
How to Handle a RejectionCerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:209-212
Suggestions for Reviewing ManuscriptsCerebrovasc Dis 2009;28:243-246
Writing Good AbstractsCerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:256-259
How to Prepare and Deliver a Scientific PresentationCerebrovasc Dis 2013;35:202-208
The Scientific Manuscript and Presentation:Key Elements of Success
Original Papers241 Prognostic Significance of Angiogenesis in Relation to Ki-67, p-53, p-27, and bcl-2
Expression in Embryonal Tumors
Moschovi, M.; Koultouki, E.; Stefanaki, K.; Sfakianos, G.; Tourkantoni, N.; Prodromou, N.;
Alexiou, G.A. (Athens)
248 Anterolateral Mini Fronto-Orbito-Zygomatic Craniotomy via an Eyebrow Incision in
Pediatrics: Technical Notes and Evaluation
El Shafei, H.I. (Cairo)254 Protective Effects of Edaravone on Experimental Spinal Cord Injury in Rats
Özgiray, E. (Izmir); Serarslan, Y.; Öztürk, O.H.; Altaş, M.; Aras, M.; Söğüt, S. (Hatay);
Yurtseven, T.; Oran, I.; Zileli, M. (Izmir)
261 Surveillance Study of Healthcare-Associated Infections in a Pediatric Neurosurgery
Unit in ItalyRaffaldi, I.; Scolfaro, C.; Pinon, M.; Garazzino, S.; Dalmasso, P.; Calitri, C.; Peretta, P.; Ragazzi, P.;
Gaglini, P.P.; Pretti, P.F.; Vitale, P.; Conio, A.; Tovo, P.-A. (Turin)
266 Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 as an Adjunct for Spine Fusion
in a Pediatric Population
Abd-El-Barr, M.M.; Cox, J.B.; Antonucci, M.U.; Bennett, J.; Murad, G.J.A.; Pincus, D.W.
(Gainesville, Fla.)Case Reports272 Successful Surgical Excision of a Nondysraphic Holodorsal Intramedullary Lipoma
in a 14-Month-Old Child
Kumar, A.; Chandra, P.S.; Bisht, A.; Garg, A.; Mahapatra, A.K.; Sharma, M.C. (New Delhi)
275 Paroxysmal Autonomic Instability with Dystonia in a Child: Rare Manifestation of an
Interpeduncular Tuberculoma
Singh, D.K.; Singh, N. (Lucknow)
(Continued on inside front cover)
IND
IA
N ACADEMY OF
NE
UR
OS
CIE
NC
ES
Highlights in th
is issue:
⚫ The Uncertain Glory of Indian Clin
ical Medicine: A
Case for Institu
tional A
udit of P
ublic
Tertiary Care Hospita
ls
Jayant, A
.⚫ Role of M
atrix Metalloproteinases 2 in Spinal Cord Injury-In
duced Neuropathic Pain
Miranpuri, G
.S.; Schomberg, D.T.; Alrfaei, B.; King, K.C.; Rynearson, B.; Wesley, V.S.; Khan, N.; Obiakor, K.; W
esley, U.V.;
Resnick, D.K.
⚫ Efficacy of A
nti-Epile
ptic Drugs in th
e Treatment o
f Tumor and Its Associated Epile
psy:
An in vitro Perspectiv
e
Kaur, T.; M
anchanda, S.; Saini, V.; Lakhman, S.S.; Kaur, G.
In
tern
atio
nal
nal
1
4
56
2
3
78
V.S. © 2012 MAYO
Editorial
41 Utilization of Statins: Guiding Principles and the
New United States Guidelines
Hennekens, C.H.; Gelb, I.J. (Boca Raton, Fla.)
Editorial Comments
13 Systemic Inflammatory Response following
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Paraskos, J.A. (Worcester, Mass.)
51 Hyperthyroid Atrial Fibrillation: Does It Matter for
Stroke Risk?
Poulin, M.-F.; Doukky, R. (Chicago, Ill.)
Review
62 Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Percutaneous
Coronary Interventions: Pathogenesis, Risk Factors,
Outcome, Prevention and Treatment
Aurelio, A.; Durante, A. (Milan)
Original Research
1 Allitridin Reduces IKr Current by Disrupting the
Trafficking of Human Ether-à-Go-Go-Related Gene
Channels
Li, G.; Cheng, G.; Wu, J.; Ma, S.; Zhang, A.; Han, W.; Sun, C.
(Xi’an)
15 Synergistic Restoring Effects of Isoproterenol and
Magnesium on KCNQ1-Inhibited Bradycardia Cell
Models Cultured in Microelectrode Array
Kim, S.K.; Pak, H.-N.; Park, Y. (Seoul)
25 Thrombin Generation and Platelet Reactivity at
Hospital Discharge and 6-Month Outcome after the
Acute Coronary Syndrome in Diabetic and
Nondiabetic Patients
Kuliczkowski, W.; Szewczyk, M.; Kaczmarski, J.; Sztohryn, E.;
Greif, M.; Pres, D. (Zabrze); Fortmann, S.D. (Towson, Md.);
Poloński, L. (Zabrze); Serebruany, V. (Towson, Md.)
34 Assessment of Characteristics of Neointimal
Hyperplasia after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in
Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: An Optical Coherence
Tomography Analysis
Tian, F.; Chen, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, T.; Guo, J.; Jin, Q. (Beijing)
43 Rat Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Protect H9C2 Cells
from Cellular Senescence via a Paracrine Mechanism
Zhang, Y. (Suzhou); Wang, D. (Haerbin); Cao, K.; Chen, M.
(Nanjing); Yang, X.; Tao, Y. (Suzhou)
54 Autoantibodies to Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein
in Patients with Aortic Regurgitation: Association with
Aortic Diameter Size
Shimoni, S.; Bar, I.; Zilberman, L.; George, J. (Rehovot)
Novel Insights from Clinical Experience
9 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for a Failed
Bio-Bentall in Patients with Marfan Syndrome
Beigel, R.; Siegel, R.J.; Kahlon, R.S.; Jilaihawi, H.; Cheng, W.;
Makkar, R.R. (Los Angeles, Calif.)
International Journal of
Cardiovascular Medicine, Surgery, Pathology and Pharmacology
International Journal of Experimental, Clinical,
Behavioural, Regenerative and Technological Gerontology
Offizielles Organ der
S. KargerMedical and Scientific Publishers
Basel . Freiburg . Paris .
London . New York .
Bangalore . Bangkok . Shanghai .
Singapore . Tokyo . Sydney
Official Journal of
the Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Association (APPLE)
Scan to access the journal homepage
www.karger.com/LIC
Genetics, Molecular Biology, Evolution, Endocrinology, Em
bryology and Pathologyof Sex Determ
ination and Differentiation
No
w liste
d in
Pu
bM
ed
/Me
dlin
e
The Scie
nce of H
earin
g and B
alance
Journal for
Translational and Clinical Research
Journal of the European Organisation for
Caries Research (ORCA)
a
b
c
h
i
j
g
f
d5 mm
5 mmEnamel
Dentine
Resin
H
L
L
H
Resin
CS
L/H
Demineralization
(7 or 21 days, pH 4.95)
Thickness: 100 μm
3 m
m
5 mm
3.5mm
TMRBaseline
3.5 mm
e
Original Papers
105 Protection of Mice by a �-Based Therapeutic Vaccine
against Cancer Associated with Human Papillomavirus
Type 16
Ghaemi, A. (Gorgan/Tehran); Soleimanjahi, H.; Gill, P.;
Hassan, Z.M.; Razeghi, S.; Fazeli, M.; Razavinikoo, S.M.H.
(Tehran)
113 Characterization of a Late Gene, ORF134, from
Bombyx mori Nucleopolyhedrovirus
Lin, F. (Zhenjiang/Zhejiang); Chen, K.; Xia, H.; Yao, Q.;
Gao, L.; Chen, H. (Zhenjiang)
122 High Conservation of Hepatitis B Virus Surface Genes
during Maternal Vertical Transmission despite Active
and Passive Vaccination
Su, H.-X.; Zhang, Y.-H.; Zhang, Z.-G.; Li, D.; Zhang, J.-X.;
Men, K.; Zhang, L.; Long, Y.; Xu, D.-Z.; Yan, Y.-P. (Xi’an)
131 Genotypic Analysis of Epstein-Barr Virus Isolates
Associated with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in
Northern China
Cui, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, X.; Chao, Y.; Xing, X. (Qingdao);
Zhao, C. (Pittsburgh, Pa.); Liu, C.; Luo, B. (Qingdao)
139 Evidence of Hepatitis E Virus Exposure among
Seronegative Healthy Residents of an Endemic Area
Husain, M.M.; Srivastava, R. (Lucknow); Akondy, R.
(Atlanta, Ga.); Aggarwal, R. (Lucknow); Jameel, S.
(New Delhi); Naik, S. (Lucknow)
156 Identification of a New Antigen Epitope in the Nuclear
Localization Signal Region of Porcine Circovirus Type
2 Capsid Protein
Guo, L.; Lu, Y.; Huang, L.; Wei, Y.; Liu, C. (Harbin)
164 Epidemiological and Clinical Features of 308
Hospitalized Patients with Novel 2009 Influenza A
(H1N1) Virus Infection in China during the First
Pandemic Wave
Zhang, G. (Wuhan/Shenzhen); Xia, Z.; Liu, Y. (Shenzhen);
Li, X. (Beijing); Tan, X. (Guangzhou); Tian, Y.; Liang, L.
(Beijing); Nie, G. (Shenzhen); Zhou, B. (Wuhan/Shenzhen)
Short Communications
146 HPV-58 Molecular Variants Exhibit Different
Transcriptional Activity
Raiol, T.; de Amorim, R.M.S. (Brasília); Galante, P. (São Paulo);
Martins, C.R.F. (Brasília); Villa, L.L.; Sichero, L. (São Paulo)
151 Epidemiology and Seroprevalence of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2
Kashyap, B.; Gautam, H.; Bhalla, P. (New Delhi)
Case Report
144 The First Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Case in
the Winter Season from Turkey
Köksal, I.; Yilmaz, G.; Iskender, S.; Arslan, M.; Yavuz, I.;
Aksoy, F. (Trabzon); Vatansever, Z. (Kars)
The European Journal of Obesity
IFSO-EC
European Chapter of the
International Federation for the Surgery of
Obesity and Metabolic Disorders
EASO
European Association for the
Study of Obesity
DAG
Deutsche Adipositas-Gesellschaft
comorbidity
epidemiology
etiology and pathogenesis
prevention
psychological aspects
sociocultural aspects
treatment
Journal of Pharmacological and Biophysical R
esearch
Review
109 Role of Stromal Fibroblasts in Cancer: Prom
oting or
Impeding?
Angeli, F.; Koumakis, G
. (Kapandriti); Chen, M.-C.; Kum
ar, S.
(Manchester); D
elinassios, J.G. (Kapandriti)
Research Articles
121 Usefulness of Serum
Tumor M
arkers, Including
Progastrin-Releasing Peptide, in Patients with Lung
Cancer: Correlation with H
istology
Molina, R.; Augé, J.M
.; Bosch, X.; Escudero, J.M.; Viñolas, N
.;
Marrades, R.; Ram
írez, J.; Carcereny, E.; Filella, X. (Barcelona)
130 Over-Expression of CD
H22 Is A
ssociated with Tum
or
Progression in Colorectal Cancer
Zhou, J.; Li, J.; Chen, J.; Liu, Y.; Gao, W
.; Ding, Y. (G
uangzhou)
141 Antibodies to Prion Protein Inhibit H
uman Colon
Cancer Cell Grow
th
McEwan, J.F.; W
indsor, M.L.; Cullis-H
ill, S.D.
(Bondi Junction, N.S.W
.)
148 A Shift from
Nuclear to Cytoplasm
ic Breast Cancer
Metastasis Suppressor 1 Expression Is A
ssociated with
Highly Proliferative Estrogen Receptor-N
egative
Breast Cancers
Frolova, N.; Edm
onds, M.D
.; Bodenstine, T.M.
(Birmingham
, Ala.); Seitz, R. (Huntsville, Ala.); Johnson, M
.R.;
Feng, R.; Welch, D
.R.; Frost, A.R. (Birmingham
, Ala.)
160 Frequency and Gene Expression Profile of Regulatory
T Cells in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Jeron, A.; Pfoertner, S.; Bruder, D.; G
effers, R.; Ham
merer, P.
(Braunschweig); Hofm
ann, R. (Marburg); Buer, J. (Essen);
Schrader, A.J. (Braunschweig/Marburg)
The Journal of the International Society for Oncology and BioM
arkers
Tumor M
arkers, Tumor Targeting and Translational Cancer Research
Clin
ical
and
Exp
erim
enta
l Sur
gery
Editorials
163 All of ARIA in One Puff?
Mösges, R. (Cologne)
165 Bugs versus Bugs: Probiotics, Microbiome and Allergy
Berin, M.C. (New York, N.Y.)
Opinion Article
215 The Development of the MeDALL Core Questionnaires
for a Harmonized Follow-Up Assessment of Eleven
European Birth Cohorts on Asthma and Allergies
Hohmann, C. (Berlin); Pinart, M. (Barcelona); Tischer, C.
(Neuherberg); Gehring, U. (Utrecht); Heinrich, J. (N
euherberg);
Kull, I.; Melén, E. (Stockholm); Smit, H
.A. (Utrecht); Torrent,
M. (Barcelona/Mahon); Wijga, A.H. (Bilthoven); W
ickman, M.
(Stockholm); Bachert, C. (Ghent); Lødrup Carlsen, K.C.;
Carlsen, K.-H. (Oslo); Bindslev-Jensen, C.; Eller, E. (Odense);
Esplugues, A. (Barcelona/Valencia); Fantini, M.P. (Bologna);
Annesi-Maesano, I.; M
omas, I. (Paris); P
orta, D. (Rome);
Vassilaki, M. (Heraklion); W
aiblinger, D. (Bradford); Sunyer, J.;
Antó, J.M. (Barcelona); Bousquet, J. (
Montpellier/Villejuif);
Keil, T. (Berlin/Würzburg); The MeDALL Study Group
Molecules and Cells in Allergy
168 Altered MicroRNA Expression of Nasal Mucosa in
Long-Term Asthma and Allergic Rhinitis
Suojalehto, H.; Lindström, I.; Majuri, M.-L.; Mitts,
C.;
Karjalainen, J.; Wolff, H
.; Alenius, H. (Helsinki)
179 Cross-Reactivity between Anisak
is spp. and Wasp
Venom Allergens
Rodríguez-Pérez, R.; Monsalve, R.I.; Galán, A.; Perez-Piñar, T.;
Umpierrez, A.; Lluch-Bernal, M.; Polo, F.; Caballero, M.L.
(Madrid)
185 The Genetic Variants of Thymic Stromal
Lymphopoietin Protein in Children with Asthma and
Allergic Rhinitis
Birben, E.; Sahiner, U.M.; Karaaslan, C.; Yavuz, T.S.; Cosgun, E.;
Kalayci, O.; Sackesen, C. (Ankara)
206 Improved FcγRIIb Targeting Functionally Translates
into Enhanced Inhibition of Basophil Activation
Buschor, P.; Eggel, A.; Zellweger, F.; Stadler, B.M.; Vogel, M.
(Bern)
Official Journal of the
Collegium Internationale Allergologicum
INTERNATIONALE
CIA
COLL
EGIU
M
ALLERGOLOGICUM
(Continued on inside front cover)
International Journal for
Cancer Research and Treatment
Original Articles
161 Analysis of the EGFR Mutation Status in Head and Neck Squamous
Cell Carcinoma before Treatment w
ith Gefitinib
169 Correlation between Biological Marker Expression and 18
F-Fluorodeoxyglucose
Uptake in Cervical Cancer Measured by Positro
n Emission Tomography
176 Cranial Magnetic Resonance Im
aging in the Staging of HER2-positive
Breast Cancer Patients
182 Association between the 8473T>C Polymorphism of PTGS2 and Prostate
Cancer Risk: A Metaanalysis Including 24,716 Subjects
188 Frequency of Computed Tomography Examinations in the Follow-Up Care
of Testicular Cancer Patients – an Evaluation of Patterns of Care in Germany
194 Downregulation of miR-145 Expression in Oral Squamous Cell C
arcinomas
and Its Clinical Significance
200 Relevance of Incidental Colorectal FDG-PET/CT-Enhanced Lesions
Case Reports
205 Loss of Transfusion Dependency Following Deferasirox Treatment of Iron
Overload in a Woman with Myelofibrosis and Spherocytosis – a Case Report
209 Panitumumab-Induced Interstitial Lung Disease in a Case of M
etastatic
Colorectal Cancer
Review Article213 ECRG1 and Its
Relationship with Esophageal Cancer: A Brief Review
Österre
ichisc
he Gese
llscha
ft für
Hämato
logie
& Med
izinis
che O
nkolo
gie
Österre
ichisc
he Gese
llscha
ft für
Hämato
logie
& Med
izinis
che O
nkolo
gie
Official Scientific Journal Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
00.250.501 – Specificity
Sensitivity
0.751.00
Clinical Reviews
Official Journal of
Review145 Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Early in Pregnancy:
Targeting the Long-Term Com
plications
Correa, P.J.; Vargas, J.F. (Santiago); Sen, S. (Boston, Mass.);
Illanes, S.E. (Santiago)
Original Articles
150 Polymorphism
s of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide
Synthase Gene in Preeclampsia in a Han Chinese
Population
Chen, Y. (Wenzhou); W
ang, D. (Taizhou); Zhou, M.; Chen, X.
(Wenzhou); Chen, J. (Taizhou)
156 Human Granulosa Cells: Insulin and Insulin-Like
Growth Factor-1 Receptors and Arom
atase Expression
Modulation by M
etformin
Fuhrmeister, I.P.; Branchini, G.; Pim
entel, A.M.; Ferreira, G.D.;
Capp, E.; Brum, I.S.; Corleta, H.E. (Porto Alegre)
163 How Reproducible Are 2-Dim
ensional
Ultrasonographic Follicular Diameter M
easurements
from Stored 3-Dim
ensional Files of Ovarian Scanning?
Servaes, K.; Van Schoubroeck, D.; Welkenhuysen, M
.;
D’Hooghe, T.; De Neubourg, D. (Leuven)
169 Pelvic Inflamm
atory Disease: A Retrospective Clinical
Analysis of 1,922 Cases in North China
Zhao, W.-H.; Hao, M
. (Taiyuan)
176 Vaginal Misoprostol versus Vaginal Estradiol in
Overcom
ing Unsatisfactory Colposcopy
Makkar, B.; Batra, S.; Gandhi, G.; Zutshi, V.; Goswami, D.
(New Delhi)
180 Reproductive Performance after Surgery for
Endometriosis: Predictive Value of the Revised
American Fertility Society Classification and the
Endometriosis Fertility Index
Zeng, C.; Xu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhu, S.; Xue, Q. (Beijing)
186 Association between Polym
orphisms in Sclerostin,
Dickkopfs and Secreted Frizzled-Related Protein
Genes and Bone Mineral Density in Postm
enopausal
Korean Wom
en
Lee, D.O. (Koyang); Kim, H.; Ku, S.-Y.; Kim
, S.H.; Kim, J.G.
(Seoul)194 A Rare Case of Asherm
an’s Syndrome after Open
Myom
ectomy: Sonographic Investigations and
Possible Underlying Mechanism
s
Papoutsis, D.; Georgantzis, D.; Daccò, M.D.; Halm
os, G.;
Moustafa, M
.; Mesquita Pinto, A.R.; M
agos, A. (London)
Novel Insights from Clinical Practice
201 A Rare Familial Case of Endom
etriosis with Very
Severe Gynecological and Obstetric Complications:
Novel Genetic Variants at a Glance
Buggio, L.; Pagliardini, L.; Gentilini, D.; De Braud, L.;
Viganò, P.; Vercellini, P. (Milan)
International Journal of the
Kuwait U
niversity Health Sciences C
entre
ww
w.karger.com
/mpp
DiseasesReview
155 Protective Role of Heat Shock Proteins in Parkinson’s
Disease
Aridon, P.; G
eraci, F.; Turturici, G.; D
’Am
elio, M.; Savettieri, G
.; Sconzo, G
. (Palermo)
Original Papers
169 Spatial Navigation and A
POE in A
mnestic M
ild Cognitive Im
pairment
Laczó, J. (Prague/Brno); Andel, R. (Tam
pa, Fla.); Vlček, K.;
Mat’oška, V. (Prague); Vyhnálek, M
. (Prague/Brno); Tolar, M
. (New
Haven, C
onn.); Bojar, M. (Prague); H
ort, J. (Prague/Brno)
178 Using the W
HO
QO
L-DIS to M
easure Quality of Life in
Persons with Physical D
isabilities Caused by N
eurodegenerative Disorders
Lucas-Carrasco, R. (Barcelona/Salamanca); Pascual-Sedano, B.;
Galán, I.; Kulisevsky, J.; Sastre-G
arriga, J.; Góm
ez-Benito, J. (Barcelona)
187 Transthyretin-Related Hereditary A
myloidosis in
a Chinese Family w
ith TTR Y114C Mutation
Zhang, Y.; Deng, Y.-L.; M
a, J.-F.; Zheng, L.; Hong, Z.;
Wang, Z.-Q
.; Sheng, C.-Y.; Xiao, Q.; Cao, L.; Chen, S.-D
. (Shanghai)
194 Impaired Brain Creatine K
inase Activity in
Huntington’s D
iseaseZhang, S.F.; H
ennessey, T.; Yang, L.; Starkova, N.N
.; Beal, M.F.;
Starkov, A.A
. (New
York, N.Y.)
202 Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in A
lzheimer’s D
isease Fam
ilies with PSEN
1 Mutations
Fortea, J.; Lladó, A.; Bosch, B.; A
ntonell, A.; O
liva, R.; M
olinuevo, J.L.; Sánchez-Valle, R. (Barcelona)
208 Impaired Ideom
otor Limb A
praxia in Cortical and Subcortical D
ementia: A
Comparison of A
lzheimer’s
and Huntington’s D
iseaseH
oll, A.K.; Ille, R. (G
raz); Wilkinson, L. (Bethesda, M
d.); O
tti, D.V.; H
ödl, E.; Herranhof, B.; Reisinger, K.M
.; Müller, N
.; Painold, A
.; Holl, E.M
.; Letmaier, M
. (Graz); Bonelli, R.M
. (Salzburg)
216 rs5848 Variant of Progranulin Gene Is a Risk of
Alzheim
er’s Disease in the Taiw
anese PopulationLee, M
.-J.; Chen, T.-F.; Cheng, T.-W.; Chiu, M
.-J. (Taipei)
221 Presence of Reactive Microglia and N
euro-inflam
matory M
ediators in a Case of Frontotemporal
Dem
entia with P301S M
utationBellucci, A
. (Cambridge/Brescia/Florence); Bugiani, O
. (M
ilan); Ghetti, B. (Indianapolis, Ind.); Spillantini, M
.G.
(Cambridge)
(Continued on inside front cover)
Sounds and Prosodies in Speech Comm
unication
EABIP
International Journal of
Thoracic Medicine
susceptibilityprevention
epidemiologydiagnosis
algorithm based
analysis of
host markers (e.g. predicting
adverse events)pathogen markers
(e.g. predicting
drug resistance)
precision treatments
therapeutic drug
monitoringbiomarkers for
treatment response,
outcome and duration
susceptipreventiibilityion
diagnosis
pre
algorithm based
analysis of
The Journal of Clinical Cytology and Cytopathology
Official Periodical
of the International
Academy of Cytology
19571957
THE INTERNATION
AL ACADEMY OF CYTOLOGY
...
.
. .
Highlights in this issue:�
Treatm
ent of Severe Renal Disease in ANCA Positive and Negative
Sm
all Vessel Vasculitis with Rituxim
ab
Shah, S.; Hruskova, Z.; Segelmark, M
.; Morgan, M
.D.; Hogan, J.; Lee, S.K.; Dale, J.;
Harper, L.; Tesar, V.; Jayne, D.R.W.; Geetha, D. �
Podocyte Structural Param
eters Do Not Predict Progression to
Diabetic Nephropathy in Norm
oalbuminuric Type 1 Diabetic
Patients
Harindhanavudhi, T.; Parks, A.; Mauer, M
.; Caramori, M
.L.
�
A Pathological Scoring System to Predict Renal Outcom
e in
Diabetic NephropathyHoshino, J.; M
ise, K.; Ueno, T.; Imafuku, A.; Kawada, M
.; Sumida, K.; Hiram
atsu, R. ·
Hasegawa, E.; Yamanouchi, M
.; Hayami, N.; Suwabe, T.; Sawa, N.; Hara, S.; Fujii, T.;
Ohashi, K.; Ubara, Y.; Takaichi, K. �
Renal Phospholipase A2 Receptor in Hepatitis B Virus-Associated
Mem
branous NephropathyXie, Q.; Li, Y.; Xue, J.; Xiong, Z.; W
ang, L.; Sun, Z.; Ren, Y.; Zhu, X.; Hao, C.-M.
Official journal of the
European Stroke Research Foundation
Highlights in this issue:
�
Large Size Hemicraniectom
y Reduces Early Herniation in
Malignant M
iddle Cerebral Artery Infarction
Neugebauer, H.; Fiss, I.; Pinczolits, A.; Hecht, N.; Witsch, J.; Dengler, N.F.; Vajkoczy, P.;
Jüttler, E.; Woitzik, J.
�
Endovascular Managem
ent of Acute Ischemic Strokes w
ith
Tandem Occlusions
Fahed, R.; Redjem, H.; Blanc, R.; Labreuche, J.; Robert, T.; Ciccio, G.; Sm
adja, D.;
Smajda, S.; Piotin, M
.
�
Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischem
ic Stroke Due to Tandem
Occlusions: Large Multicenter Series and System
atic Review
Grigoryan, M.; Haussen, D.C.; Hassan, A.E.; Lim
a, A.; Grossberg, J.; Rebello, L.C.;
Tekle, W.; Frankel, M.; Nogueira, R.G.
european stroke conference
Official Journal of the International Society of
Nutrigenetics/Nutrigenomics
ISNNwww.isnn.info
ESTAB
LISH
ED A
ND CONTINUOUSLY PUBLISHED SINCE
D I G E S T I O NESTAB
LISH
EDAN
UBLISSHHEDSIINNCCE
D I G I O N
1895
Internat ional Journal of
Gast roenterology
Dutch Socie
ty of
Gastro-In
testin
al
Surgery N
V G I C
European Digestive
Surgery E D S
Internatio
nal
Associa
tion of S
urgeons,
Gastroenter
ologists
and Oncologists I
A S G O
aa
Inte
rnatio
nal Journ
al of
Phoniatr
ics,
Speech Thera
py and
Comm
unicatio
n Path
ology
Editor’s Corner 1 A Voyeuristic View of Possibilities and
Threats: Neurosciences and Education
Lee, C.D. (Evanston, Ill.) Original Paper 5 Human-Animal Interaction as a Context for
Positive Youth Development: A Relational
Developmental Systems Approach to
Constructing Human-Animal Interaction
Theory and Research Mueller, M.K. (North Grafton, Mass.) Commentaries 26 The Value of (Research on) Animals in
Children’s Lives. Commentary on Mueller
Severson, R.L. (Vancouver, B.C.)
30 Development and Human-Animal Interaction.
Commentary on Mueller Hurley, K.B. (Davis, Calif.)
Original Paper 35 Coming of Age in the Geospatial Revolution:
The Geographic Self Re-Defined
Downs, R.M. (University Park, Pa.) Commentary 58 Geospatial Tools and the Changing Nature of
Human Spatial Thinking. Commentary on
Downs Gauvain, M. (Riverside, Calif.)
M
edic
al
Epig
enet
ics
Off
icia
l Jou
rnal
of
Inte
rnat
iona
l Neu
roen
docr
ine
Fede
ratio
nEu
rop
ean
Neu
roen
docr
ine
Ass
ocia
tion
Euro
pea
n N
euro
endo
crin
e Tu
mor
Soc
iety
Orig
inal
Pap
ers
241
Pred
icti
on o
f Res
pira
tory
Out
com
e in
Ext
rem
ely
Low
Ges
tati
onal
Age
Infa
nts
Para
d, R
.B.;
Dav
is, J
.M. (
Bos
ton,
Mas
s.);
Lo, J
.; Th
omas
, M.;
Mar
low
, N.;
Cal
vert,
S.;
Peac
ock,
J.L
.; G
reen
ough
, A.
(Lon
don)
249
Keta
min
e A
tten
uate
s th
e A
CTH
Res
pons
e to
Hyp
oxia
in L
ate-
Ges
tati
on O
vine
Fet
us
Cha
ng, E
.I.; W
ood,
C.E
. (G
aine
svill
e, F
la.)
258
Perf
usio
n In
dex
in P
rete
rm In
fant
s du
ring
the
Firs
t
3 D
ays
of L
ife: R
efer
ence
Val
ues
and
Rela
tion
wit
h
Clin
ical
Var
iabl
es
Ald
erlie
sten
, T.;
Lem
mer
s, P
.M.A
.; B
aerts
, W.;
Gro
enen
daal
,
F.; v
an B
el, F
. (U
trech
t)
271
Cost
Sav
ings
of H
uman
Milk
as
a St
rate
gy to
Red
uce
the
Inci
denc
e of
Nec
roti
zing
Ent
eroc
olit
is in
Ver
y Lo
w
Birt
h W
eigh
t Inf
ants
John
son,
T.J
.; Pa
tel,
A.L
.; B
igge
r, H
.R.;
Engs
trom
, J.L
.;
Mei
er, P
.P. (
Chi
cago
, Ill.
)
277
Lung
Dep
osit
ion
of N
ebul
ized
Sur
fact
ant i
n N
ewbo
rn
Pigl
ets
Linn
er, R
.; Pe
rez-
de-S
a, V
.; C
unha
-Gon
calv
es, D
. (Lu
nd)
283
Usi
ng M
easu
rem
ents
of S
hunt
and
Ven
tila
tion
-to-
Perf
usio
n Ra
tio
to Q
uant
ify th
e Se
veri
ty o
f
Bron
chop
ulm
onar
y D
yspl
asia
Das
sios
, T.;
Cur
ley,
A.;
Mor
ley,
C.;
Ros
s-R
usse
ll, R
.
(Cam
brid
ge)
289
Neu
ro-Im
agin
g Fi
ndin
gs in
Infa
nts
wit
h Co
ngen
ital
Cyto
meg
alov
irus
Infe
ctio
n: R
elat
ion
to T
rim
este
r of
Infe
ctio
n
Oos
tero
m, N
.; N
ijman
, J.;
Gun
kel,
J.; W
olfs
, T.F
.W.;
Gro
enen
daal
, F.;
Verb
oon-
Mac
iole
k, M
.A.;
de V
ries,
L.S
.
(Utre
cht)
297
Infa
nt A
rter
ial S
tiff
ness
and
Mat
erna
l Iro
n St
atus
in
Preg
nanc
y: A
UK
Birt
h Co
hort
(Bab
y V
IP S
tudy
)
Alw
an, N
.A.;
Cad
e, J
.E. (
Leed
s); M
cArd
le, H
.J. (
Abe
rdee
n);
Gre
enw
ood,
D.C
. (Le
eds)
; Hay
es, H
.E. (
Abe
rdee
n); C
iant
ar,
E.; S
imps
on, N
.A.B
. (Le
eds)
304
CXCR
4 Bl
ocka
de A
tten
uate
s H
yper
oxia
-Indu
ced
Lung
Inju
ry in
Neo
nata
l Rat
s
Dru
mm
ond,
S.;
Ram
acha
ndra
n, S
.; To
rres
, E.;
Hua
ng, J
.;
Heh
re, D
.; Su
guih
ara,
C.;
Youn
g, K
.C. (
Mia
mi,
Fla.
)
Shor
t Com
mun
icat
ion
266
Phas
e Ch
angi
ng M
ater
ial:
An
Alt
erna
tive
Met
hod
for
Cool
ing
Babi
es w
ith
Hyp
oxic
Isch
aem
ic
Ence
phal
opat
hy
Thom
as, N
.; C
hakr
apan
i, Y.
; Reb
ekah
, G.;
Kar
eti,
K.;
Dev
asah
ayam
, S. (
Vello
re)
Feta
l and
Neo
nata
l Res
earc
h
International Journal of
Cancer Research
and Treatment
Visceral Medicine Gastroenterology, Endoscopy and Surgery –
The Interdisciplinary Approach to Gastrointestinal Disease
formerly
Associated Organ
for Continuing Education
Inte
rnat
ion
al J
ou
rnal
of
Exp
erim
enta
l an
d
C
linic
al P
har
mac
olo
gy
Orig
inal
Pap
ers
121
Bupi
vaca
ine
Indu
ces
Reac
tive
Oxy
gen
Spec
ies
Prod
ucti
on v
ia A
ctiv
atio
n of
the
AM
P-A
ctiv
ated
Prot
ein
Kina
se-D
epen
dent
Pat
hway
Lu, J
.; Xu,
S.Y
.; Zha
ng, Q
.G.; L
ei, H
.Y. (
Gua
ngzh
ou)
135
Expe
rim
enta
l Ost
eoar
thri
tis
in R
ats
Is A
tten
uate
d by
ABC
2946
40, a
Sel
ecti
ve In
hibi
tor o
f Sph
ingo
sine
Kina
se-2
Fitz
patri
ck, L
.R.; G
reen
, C.; M
aine
s, L.
W.; S
mith
, C.D
.
(Her
shey
, Pa.)
144
Nic
oran
dil I
nhib
its
Ang
iote
nsin
-II-In
duce
d
Prol
ifera
tion
of C
ultu
red
Rat C
ardi
ac F
ibro
blas
ts
Liou
, J.-Y
. (Ta
ipei
); H
ong,
H.-J
. (Ta
ichun
g); S
ung,
L.-C
.;
Chao
, H.-H
. (Ta
ipei
); Ch
en, P
.-Y.; C
heng
, T.-H
. (Ta
ichun
g);
Chan
, P.; L
iu, J
.-C. (
Taip
ei)
155
Test
oste
rone
Inhi
bits
cA
MP-
Phos
phod
iest
eras
es in
Hea
rt E
xtra
cts
from
Rat
s an
d In
crea
ses
cAM
P Le
vels
in
Isol
ated
Lef
t Atr
iaBo
rdal
lo, J
.; Can
tabr
ana,
B.; S
uáre
z, L.
; Sán
chez
, M. (
Ovi
edo)
161
Prot
eom
ic A
ppro
ach
to th
e St
udy
of S
tati
n Pl
eiot
ropy
in K
idne
y Tr
ansp
lant
Pat
ient
s
Pére
z, V.
; Nav
arro
-Muñ
oz, M
. (Ba
rcelo
na);
Mas
, S. (
Mad
rid);
Bayé
s, B.
; Pas
tor,
M.C
.; Mar
tínez
-Các
eres
, E.; L
auzu
rica,
R.
(Bar
celo
na);
Egid
o, J.
(Mad
rid);
Rom
ero,
R. (
Barc
elona
)
169
Stud
y of
Adr
ener
gic,
Imid
azol
ine,
and
End
othe
lin
Rece
ptor
s in
Clo
nidi
ne-,
Mor
phin
e-, a
nd O
xyco
done
-
Indu
ced
Chan
ges
in R
at B
ody
Tem
pera
ture
Bhal
la, S
.; And
urka
r, S.
V.; G
ulat
i, A.
(Dow
ners
Gro
ve, I
ll.)
180
Effe
cts
of D
iffer
ent T
ypes
of A
nest
heti
c A
gent
s on
Cellu
lar P
rote
in K
inas
e C-
� D
ynam
ics
in M
ouse
Bra
in
Take
da, A
.; Miy
ashi
ta, R
.; Nag
ura,
T.; S
ekin
e, S.
; Mur
ozon
o, M
.
(Tok
yo);
Mat
sum
oto,
S. (
Ota
City
); U
chin
o, H
. (To
kyo)
187
Effe
cts
of R
ispe
rido
ne o
n Le
arni
ng a
nd M
emor
y in
Nai
ve a
nd M
K-80
1-Tr
eate
d Ra
ts
Kom
suog
lu C
eliky
urt,
I.; A
kar,
F.Y.; U
lak,
G.; M
utlu
, O.;
Erde
n, F.
(Um
utte
pe)
204
Ant
ipyr
etic
and
Ana
lges
ic E
ffec
ts o
f Zal
topr
ofen
for
the
Trea
tmen
t of A
cute
Upp
er R
espi
rato
ry T
ract
Infe
ctio
n: V
erifi
cati
on o
f a N
onin
feri
orit
y H
ypot
hesi
s
Usi
ng L
oxop
rofe
n So
dium
Azum
a, A.
; Kud
oh, S
. (To
kyo)
; Nak
ashi
ma,
M. (
Ham
amat
su);
Nag
atak
e, T.
(Nag
asak
i)21
4 Ef
fect
s of
Sys
tem
ic C
apsa
icin
Tre
atm
ent o
n TR
PV1
and
Tach
ykin
in N
K 1 Rec
epto
r Dis
trib
utio
n an
d Fu
ncti
on in
the
Nuc
leus
of t
he S
olit
ary
Trac
t of t
he A
dult
Rat
Ger
aght
y, D
.P. (L
aunc
esto
n, T
as.);
Maz
zone
, S.B
.
(St L
ucia
, Qld
.); C
arte
r, C.
; Kun
de, D
.A. (
Laun
cesto
n, T
as.)
224
Poss
ible
Rol
e of
Pho
spho
inos
itid
e-3-
Kina
se in
Mx1
Prot
ein
Tran
slat
ion
and
Ant
ivir
al A
ctiv
ity
of
Inte
rfer
on-O
meg
a-St
imul
ated
HeL
a Ce
lls
Seo,
Y.; K
im, M
.; Cho
i, M
.; Kim
, S.; P
ark,
K.; O
h, I.
; Chu
ng, S
.;
Suh,
H.; H
ong,
S.; P
ark,
S. (
Chun
gche
ongb
uk-d
o)
232
Ang
iote
nsin
II R
ecep
tor B
lock
er, L
osar
tan,
Am
elio
rate
s G
enta
mic
in-In
duce
d O
xida
tive
Str
ess
and
Nep
hrot
oxic
ity
in R
ats
Hee
ba, G
.H. (
El-M
inia
)Sh
ort C
omm
unic
atio
ns13
0 Th
e A
bilit
y of
Flu
cona
zole
to P
enet
rate
into
Vent
ilate
d, H
ealt
hy a
nd In
flam
ed L
ung
Tiss
ue in
a
Mod
el o
f Sev
ere
Seps
is in
Rat
s
Mau
ric, O
.; Tha
lling
er, C
.; Kug
ler, S
.A.; J
oukh
adar
, S.M
.;
Kova
r, F.M
. (Vi
enna
); Ko
nz, K
.H. (
Mön
chen
glad
bach
);
Gra
ning
er, W
. (Vi
enna
); Jo
ukha
dar,
C. (V
ienn
a/Bo
ston,
Mas
s.)
152
Olo
pata
dine
Hyd
roch
lori
de In
hibi
ts C
apsa
icin
-
Indu
ced
Flar
e Re
spon
se in
Hum
ans
Shin
do, M
.; Yos
hida
, Y.; Y
amam
oto,
O. (
Yona
go)
195
Enal
apri
lat-
Med
iate
d A
ctiv
atio
n of
Kin
in B
1 Rec
epto
rs
and
Vaso
dila
tion
in th
e Ra
t Iso
late
d Pe
rfus
ed K
idne
y
Baut
ista-
Pére
z, R.
; Are
llano
, A.; F
ranc
o, M
.; Oso
rio, H
.;
Coro
nel,
I. (M
exico
City
)
Explo
ring th
e Bas
is of D
iseas
e
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 0
50
100
150
Days i
n cu
lture
PD
AG11
513
AG01
972
AG09
602
GM00
969
200
250
300
××
××
××
AG09
602 (
PD 19
)
AG11
513 (
PD 20
)
International Union of
Nutritional Sciences (IUNS)
IUNS
Federation of European
Nutrition Societies (FENS)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Ernährung (DGE)
Offi cial Journal of
Affi liated with
Japanese Society for
Parenteral & Enteral Nutrition (JSPEN)
Early Nutrition Academy
KI 1
6220
Introducing the new interdisciplinary Karger journal
Karger premium quality – open access – peer-reviewed – rapid publication
Get the full picture on www.biomedicinehub.com
We invite you to submit now!There is currently no Article Processing Charge (APC).www.karger.com/bmh_guidelines
• 16 internationally renowned senior editors
• over 170 Editorial Board Members
• from 35 countries
• specialized in 41 medical disciplines
Biomedicine Hub is an interdisciplinary journal: a ‚hub‘ for researchers, clinicians and public health professionals across biomedical discip-lines to share research findings, ideas, theories, experimental results and clinical experience. Biomedicine Hub aims at facilitating the
exchange of knowledge between disciplines, with a focus on translational science for the development of cutting-edge technologies and the improvement of health care. A further focus is on emerging interdisciplinary fields at the forefront of medicine.
Join us on FacebookBiomedicine Hub
