Writing is usually integrated in the curriculum of science studies. However, students often lack the skills to write for various audiences or, to produce a well written manuscript. We developed a concise project of 15 European Credits to improve the writing skills in an early phase of the bachelor study. Students worked on texts from various journals and looked at the writing styles. They rewrote texts in a popular and more scientific way and practiced with clear, vivid language, avoiding clutter and hedge words, considering a proper use of grammar and interpunction. Medical writing was also introduced during the project. Grading was based on rewriting for a non-expert and expert audience. A rewritten text was presented to the public in the form of a student-initiated survey. This project shows an inverted approach creating student ownership and enthusiasm for writing. In addition, we created and tested successfully a concise two-day workshop based on this project. Based on the results we herewith present the work as an idea to explore.

UNASSIGNED: Proficiency in medical writing and publishing is essential for medical researchers. Workshops can play a valuable role in addressing these issues. However, there is a lack of systematic summaries of evidence on the evaluation of their impacts. So, in this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate all articles published on the impact of such workshops worldwide.
UNASSIGNED: We searched Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Medline, ISI Web of Science, ERIC database, and grey literature with no language, time period, or geographical location limitations. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, before-after studies, surveys, and program evaluation and development studies were included. We performed a meta-analysis on data related to knowledge increase after the workshops and descriptively reported the evaluation of other articles that did not have sufficient data for a meta-analysis. All analyses were performed using Stata software, version 15.0.
UNASSIGNED: Of 23 040 reports, 222 articles underwent full-text review, leading to 45 articles reporting the impacts of workshops. Overall, the reports on the impact of such workshops were incomplete or lacked the necessary precision to draw acceptable conclusions. The workshops were sporadic, and researchers used their own method of assessment. Meta-analyses of the impact on the knowledge showed that workshops could nonsignificantly increase the mean or percentage of participants\' knowledge.
UNASSIGNED: In the absence of systematic academic courses on medical writing/publishing, workshops are conducted worldwide; however, reports on educational activities during such workshops, the methods of presentations, and their curricula are incomplete and vary. Their impact is not evaluated using standardized methods, and no valid and reliable measurement tools have been employed for these assessments.

The publication landscape for case reports has undergone a significant shift, with many high-impact journals deprioritizing or ceasing their publication altogether. This trend has led to the emergence of case-based reviews as an alternative to traditional case reports. Several factors drive this shift. Case-based reviews offer a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature compared to single case reports. They employ systematic search methodologies, reducing the risk of excluding relevant data, and providing robust evidence. From a publisher\'s perspective, case-based reviews have a greater potential for citation. While recommendations exist for writing traditional case reports, such as the CAse REports (CARE) guidelines, there is a lack of published recommendations for composing case-based reviews. This review aims to address this gap by providing guidance on drafting high-quality case-based reviews.

暂无摘要。

Proficiency in medical writing is crucial for disseminating reports of medical studies. The impact of workshops in this regard on participants\' confidence is a subject of debate. We assessed the impact of a hands-on workshop on participants\' confidence in medical writing. Participants of a 2-day \"learning-by-doing\" workshop held at McMaster University participated in this before-after study. We used a unique, reliable, and valid tool comprising two domains of confidence in medical writing and using English language before and after receiving the educational intervention. Of 25 participants, 21 completed the instrument before and after the workshop. Typical participants were female, and students in their 30s, who had not attended a prior workshop. The mean (95% CI) increase in the participants\' confidence for domain 1 was 15.3 (10.5, 20.1), for domain 2 was 16.8 (9.8, 23.8), and for the total score was 32.1 (20.9, 43.2) (all P<0.001). Between-subgroup analyses showed the score increase was significantly higher in participants with less than 5 years of experience in medical research. The workshop had a positive impact on enhancing participants\' confidence in writing skills, including using active verbs, crafting short sentences, summarizing main findings, and adhering to checklists like CONSORT. Hands-on medical writing workshops can boost participants\' confidence in writing medical articles and using optimal English language. Targeting junior researchers and graduate students could result in a better outcome. Emphasizing the writing areas where participants achieved higher score changes might yield better outcomes for such workshops.

The debate surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing has already attracted significant interest in medical and life sciences. While AI can undoubtedly expedite the process of manuscript creation and correction, it raises several criticisms. The crossover between AI and health sciences is relatively recent, but the use of AI tools among physicians and other scientists who work in the life sciences is growing very fast. Within this whirlwind, it is becoming essential to realize where we are heading and what the limits are, including an ethical perspective. Modern conversational AIs exhibit a context awareness that enables them to understand and remember any conversation beyond any predefined script. Even more impressively, they can learn and adapt as they engage with a growing volume of human language input. They all share neural networks as background mathematical models and differ from old chatbots for their use of a specific network architecture called transformer model [1]. Some of them exceed 100 terabytes (TB) (e.g., Bloom, LaMDA) or even 500 TB (e.g., Megatron-Turing NLG) of text data, the 4.0 version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was trained with nearly 45 TB, but stays updated by the internet connection and may integrate with different plugins that enhance its functionality, making it multimodal.

暂无摘要。

Background: When properly utilized, artificial intelligence generated content (AIGC) may improve virtually every aspect of research, from data gathering to synthesis. Nevertheless, when used inappropriately, the use of AIGC may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate information and introduce potential ethical concerns.Research Design: Cross-sectional. Study Sample: 65 top surgical journals. Data Collection: Each journals submission guidelines and portal was queried for guidelines regarding AIGC use.Results: We found that, in July 2023, 60% of the top 65 surgical journals had introduced guidelines for use, with more surgical journals (68%) introducing guidelines than surgical subspecialty journals (52.5%), including otolaryngology (40%). Furthermore, of the 39 with guidelines, only 69.2% gave specific use guidelines. No included journal, at the time of analysis, explicitly disallowed AIGC use.Conclusions: Altogether, this data suggests that while many journals have quickly reacted to AIGC usage, the quality of such guidelines is still variable. This should be pre-emptively addressed within academia.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for medical writing is on the rise in academic and medical entities worldwide. However, a huge disparity in the perception of professional medical writing arises from inadequate education and regularity in service quality and potential ethical challenges. Hence, we aimed to examine the knowledge, attitude, and perception toward professional medical writing support (PMWS) of healthcare professionals at King Fahad Medical City (KFMC).
METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire that was validated for its accuracy and clarity by an expert panel in academic integrity. The self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 200 healthcare professionals from a broad range of specialties throughout KFMC. The socio-demographic characteristics and healthcare professionals\' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions were recorded. The responses were quantitatively evaluated using a 5-point Likert Scale and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 25 (IBM, New York, United States).
RESULTS: 162 healthcare professionals in KFMC filled in the questionnaire completely. Most respondents agreed that it was acceptable for medical writers to help with writing publications and that they offered a valuable service. Concerning association with socio-demographic characteristics, the mean score of knowledge was found to be significantly related to those with age ≥45 years (p<0.001), PhD degree (p=0.044), >5 years of research experience (p<0.001), and being a faculty/consultant (p=0.005). No significant association was found with the mean total score of attitude. Participants having >5 years of research experience were found to have a higher significant level of perception (p=0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights that PMWS is relatively well-utilized and perceived positively within KFMC. There is a need for further research and education of ethics regarding the use of PMWS.

ChatGPT, a large language model, has gained significance in medical writing, particularly in case reports that document the course of an illness. This article explores the integration of ChatGPT and how ChatGPT shapes the process, product, and politics of medical writing in the real world. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on case reports utilizing ChatGPT and indexed in PubMed, encompassing publication information. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis was conducted to categorize the applications and limitations of ChatGPT and the publication trend of application categories. A total of 66 case reports utilizing ChatGPT were identified, with a predominant preference for the online version and English input by the authors. The prevalent application categories were information retrieval and content generation. Notably, this trend remained consistent across different months. Within the subset of 32 articles addressing ChatGPT limitations in case report writing, concerns related to inaccuracies and a lack of clinical context were prominently emphasized. This pointed out the important role of clinical thinking and professional expertise, representing the foundational tenets of medical education, while also accentuating the distinction between physicians and generative artificial intelligence.