English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In 1987, while Editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, I wrote and published an editorial with the title ‘Needed: review articles with more scientific rigor’. I was prompted to do this by a paper I had initially rejected but eventually accepted for publication in the Annals with my accompanying editorial commentary. In retrospect, Cynthia Mulrow’s ‘The medical review article: state of the science’ can now be seen as a landmark in medicine’s long road from ‘experience and expertise’ to ‘evidence’ as the justification for particular medical treatments. When and where this road begins will remain a matter for argument: The James Lind Library offers many candidate ‘beginnings’. Despite the growing development during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries of quantitative data for judgements on treatments, clinicians in these periods continued to rely on ‘expert’ judgements for choices of treatments. The challenge facing doctors who wish to identify evidence relevant to their practice among the plethora of potentially relevant reports was recognized as a problem at least as early as the 18th century. Andrew Duncan’s editorial Introduction to the first issue of Philosophical and Medical Commentaries, published in 1773, has a remarkably familiar ring:

The move toward setting scientific standards for the content of medical review articles