An article published in JAMA Dermatology instructs physicians how to identify a brown recluse bite from other skin lesions. Erroneous diagnoses of brown recluse bites by doctors can have public health consequences by causing unnecessary pest control treatment of patients’ homes.
Pest Control Technology: Not Recluse
An Internet Survey in a Population-Based Cohort Study
Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort is a web-based survey looking at the association of cancer risk and consuming ultra-processed foods in people in France who responded to a survey. Population-based cohort studies were previously done by calling people’s landlines, asking them to fill out surveys, and requesting that they drive to the clinic for a health examination.
Perhaps further epidemiological studies will be done primarily using online surveys, as the authors did in this paper. It would make epidemiological studies much less expensive and more readily available. But the validity of the results have not yet been verified.
Using the internet selects for younger people responding to the survey. This may not be representative of the larger population. But as these generations age, using the internet for data collection may be a useful tool.
The internet is an anonymous place, and it is difficult to understand the population that is being studied when using the World Wide Web as the only data collection vehicle. This may be a worth-while sacrifice for the convenience of bypassing what has historically been the most arduous part of studying the public’s health.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care
The Journal of the American Medical Association posted the most viewed research articles published in each of their medical specialty journals. They then interviewed the authors of each publication to determine why physicians and the public were so intrigued by their work.
Neurology, psychiatry, and neuroscience have a common origin. Dr. Martin describes the history of the evolution of the fields. Here’s an illustration of the separate of disciplines from the paper, which is available for free at the source below.
The American Journal of Psychiatry: The Integration of Neurology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience in the 21st Century by Joseph B. Martin, M.D., Ph.D.
I. Start with the Results
Make your tables and figures
A. Tables and Figures
i. Table 1 – Population Description
1. If dichotomous outcome list descriptors by case control status with p values (age, gender, height, weight, BP, fev1 etc)
2. If Quantitative outcome – describe sample size, age, gender etc in table
ii. Table 2 – Exposure variable and how it related to other variables
1. Still descriptive
2. Maybe a table of correlations
3. Describe what variables will be in the analysis
a. Chemistry results
b. Allele frequencies
c. Pack years
iii. Table 3 – Regression Models for each outcome
a. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals
2. Linear or multivariate
a. Beta coefficient
3. Format – do not need all information. Can use just the interesting results in the table and footnote the expected results.
a. For example: Table with – Univariate OR/ OR controlling for basic demographics/ OR controlling for CV risks/ OR controlling for other risks.
1. Do a compelling figure demonstrating the most important result in the study – Does not have to be including all analysis, may just demonstrate Univariate result that is confirmed with regression model
A paragraph for each figure referencing the figure and describing the important findings but not all the data in the table
A. Paragraph 1
Discuss the outcome variable: COPD is the 4th leading cause of death
B. Paragraph 2
Discuss the exposure variable: MSK disease is common in aging but often overlooked in systemic illness. It is a strong predictor of QofL.
C. Paragraph 3
What is known about the outcome variable and exposure variable together (or not known)
D. Paragraph 4
“Therefore we did the following study to examine the relationship between MSK disease and COPD
A. Population description
B. How you measured each exposure and outcome
C. Events “were adjudicated by a panel of three physicians…..”
D. Details of biochemical measurements as needed by the situation
Common measure vs. new technique
E. Statistical methods
A. Paragraph 1
Primary result and how it ties to what was in the introduction
B. Paragraph 2
More details about the outcome or exposure in the literature and how your study was similar or different (point by point)
C. Paragraph 3
Limitations (maybe) or strengths
D. Unique methodologies
E. Clinical or public health significance of results
F. Generalizability issues
G. You probably want to conclude something
A. Very important to draw attention to your results
B. 90% of people who read the title will not read any further
C. Describe the important result in the title
i. “Increased use of IM rods for hip fracture surgery is associated with greater cost and higher complications” rather than “the association between IM rods, costs and complications”. One TELLS the reader what he or she will read the other is trying to tantalize the reader into reading the paper, one is efficient, one isn’t. Guess which!
Reddit: Writing an Epidemiology Paper in a Few Easy Steps by John Hokanson