FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2124135087> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2124135087 endingPage "684" @default.
• W2124135087 startingPage "684" @default.
• W2124135087 abstract "Authors' reply Sir—If journals want to reverse their priorities and put the needs of their readers above those of their authors they will need to use language that readers, rather than authors, prefer. The list I have was not of “words that Michael O'Donnell does not like”—indeed I am rather fond of some of them—but of words and phrases that readability studies1Albert T The A-Z of medical writing. BMJ Books, London2000Google Scholar suggest make prose less likely to be read, especially when dispensed as liberally as they are in scientific papers. I suspect, however, that most readability studies were done on readers whose first language was English or American—they certainly pay little attention to cultural differences—so maybe we should repeat them on the international readership defined by Joseph Watine and Johannes Borgstein. Though I warn these correspondents that they will not necessarily be pleased with the results; these studies rarely bring comfort to authors. Vocabulary, however, is only one component of the language evolved by those who write to be published rather than to be read. And English as a second language confers no immunity to the other aberrations I described. The paper that used up five pages before concluding that “the null hypothesis that both treatments will show equal results cannot be confirmed or rejected because of the small number of participants”,2Lamers IIJ Jamin RII Zaat JO et al.Dietary advice for acute diarrhoea in general practice: a pilot study.Br J Gen Pract. 1998; 48: 1819-1823PubMed Google Scholar came from an institute in The Netherlands. And it was an Italian physician who invited European colleagues to a meeting that he claimed would offer “an in-depth overview of the state of the art in IHD”.3Circular distributed at European Heart House. Nice, FranceMarch, 1996Google Scholar I confess to having failed abjectly as a writer by allowing at least two readers to conclude I was promoting an interest in what it means to be an individual as an alternative to evidence-based medicine. I would like any doctor looking after me to be well versed in both. To use the example given, the evidence database will indicate the most effective treatment for colorectal liver metastases but the doctors, particularly the family doctors, looking after individuals with such a disease must also help their patients cope with what I described as the “feelings of regret, betrayal, fear, loneliness, and all the other perplexing emotions than can turn the same disease into a different illness in different individuals”. For the moment, I suggest, the most helpful database they can draw on is The Arts. And, as the American physician Faith Fitzgerald has pointed out, the rewards for consulting this database are not confined to patients. “The point is not, of course, that knowledge of literature, history, music, art, or other non-medical scientific subjects makes one a better diagnostician (although this may be true) or a better therapist (although this is almost certainly true), but that the possession by the doctor of a background necessary to explore these areas with patients vastly enriches the relationship.”4Fitzgerald F Helen Glaser. the lighthouse keeper.The Pharos. 1999; 62: 4-5Google Scholar Evidence-based illiteracy or illiterate evidenceWe entirely agree with Michael O'Donnell (Feb 5, p 489)1 that medical literature is gradually becoming an oxymoron. However, we have some points of contention with his article. He notes that many biomedical articles originate from illiterate and non-scientific people. We can agree with that. Illiteracy hardly generates good medicine or good science. He seems to forget, however, that more than half of the English-language articles published in biomedical literature are written by people whose first language is not English and that the percentage of readers whose first language is not English must approach 90%. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2124135087 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2124135087 creator A5084287898 @default.
• W2124135087 date "2000-08-01" @default.
• W2124135087 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2124135087 title "Evidence-based illiteracy or illiterate evidence" @default.
• W2124135087 cites W1586383545 @default.
• W2124135087 cites W1933667833 @default.
• W2124135087 cites W2473047943 @default.
• W2124135087 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)73835-6" @default.
• W2124135087 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2124135087 type Work @default.
• W2124135087 sameAs 2124135087 @default.
• W2124135087 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2124135087 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2124135087 hasAuthorship W2124135087A5084287898 @default.
• W2124135087 hasBestOaLocation W21241350871 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C165205368 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C2777601683 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C2778143727 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C2778223634 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C2987496018 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C547764534 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C82307848 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C138885662 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C145420912 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C151730666 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C15744967 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C165205368 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C17744445 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C19417346 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C199539241 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C2777267654 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C2777601683 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C2778143727 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C2778223634 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C2987496018 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C41895202 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C547764534 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C554936623 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C71924100 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C73484699 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C82307848 @default.
• W2124135087 hasConceptScore W2124135087C86803240 @default.
• W2124135087 hasIssue "9230" @default.
• W2124135087 hasLocation W21241350871 @default.
• W2124135087 hasOpenAccess W2124135087 @default.
• W2124135087 hasPrimaryLocation W21241350871 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W1510680117 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W1527819738 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W1984120905 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W2027979414 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W2106971424 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W2127684704 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W2156984954 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W2953115013 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W4249840657 @default.
• W2124135087 hasRelatedWork W2340384203 @default.
• W2124135087 hasVolume "356" @default.
• W2124135087 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2124135087 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2124135087 magId "2124135087" @default.
• W2124135087 workType "article" @default.