淺談醫學期刊綜論的寫作

Writing Review Articles for Medical Journals

辜美安(Malcolm Koo) ； 呂明錡(Ming-Chi Lu) ； 賴金英(Chin-Ying Lai)

《台灣醫學》 19卷5期 (2015/09) Pp. 542-549

https://doi.org/10.6320/FJM.2015.19(5).13

摘要

現今醫學研究發展突飛猛進，期刊論文發表的數量亦同步倍增，大量的資訊加上往往正反不一的研究結果容易使讀者無所適從，因此，回顧式的文章顯得尤為實用，讀者能快速對某一個關心的議題獲得概括性的認識。回顧式的文章可分為三個類別，包括敘述性回顧、系統性回顧和統合分析，本文以醫學期刊綜論發表為例，從了解三者的差異，進而提供綜論的寫作流程，讓有計畫撰寫綜論的讀者能有更深入的了解。

關鍵字

期刊發表 ； 投稿 ； 醫學寫作 ； 綜論 ； 系統性回顧 ； 統合分析

並列摘要

With the rapid advancements in medical research, the amount of publications in academic journals has escalated accordingly. A large amount of information, often with conflicting results, can overwhelm readers. Therefore, review articles have become a highly pragmatic source of information and they can provide readers a quick overall understanding of a topic of interest. Review articles can broadly be divided into narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The present article aims to describe the differences between these three types of articles from the perspective of medical research. Furthermore, the process of writing a review article is explained to provide readers who are intended to write one themselves.

並列關鍵字

Publications ； manuscript submission ； medical writing ； review ； systematic review ； meta-analysis

參考文獻

Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al: How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2014;312:171-9."

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB: Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:376-80."

Yuan Y, Hunt RH: Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:1086-92."

Roundtree AK, Kallen MA, Lopez-Olivo MA, et al: Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62: 128-37."

Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70."