O neurologista e a literatura médica: o processo de educação interminável

Lana-Peixoto, Marco Aurélio

doi:10.1590/S0004-282X1992000200023

Resumos

A grande profusão da literatura médica gerou a necessidade do desenvolvimento de técnicas de seleção e de leitura que permitem o acesso e a avaliação crítica dos trabalhos mais significativos em relação à atualização e ao aperfeiçoamento das nossas habilidades na prática diária. A prioridade está na leitura de artigos originais, ou seja, daqueles que relatam novas observações ou resultados de investigações planejadas. Por sua vez, os artigos originais devem ser selecionados a partir da avaliação de sua aplicabilidade à nossa prática específica e do rigor de sua metodologia. O acesso aos artigos originais relevantes ocorre por seleção dos periódicos que serão abordados. A leitura das principais revistas da especialidade, o manuseio das revistas gerais de maior circulação e com maior fator impacto, e a consulta regular aos Current Contents são os métodos mais eficazes de triar os artigos que serão então avaliados. A leitura de uma revista nacional da especialidade tem interesse para se acompanhar o desenvolvimento da neurologia no país e para o estudo da epidemiologia e das peculiaridades das doenças prevalentes em nosso meio. Os artigos de revisão da literatura são úteis apenas como abordagem geral de um tema, como fonte de referências de trabalhos originais ou quando contêm meta-análise dos artigos incluídos.

To keep up to date with new advances in medical care and in the understanding of the disease process which affects their specific patients neurologists need to develop strategies for continuing education. They must be learners throughout their careers and the learning must be self-directed, active and independent. The best way to reach this goal is to devote regular time to the medical literature. However as the great volume of journal literature precludes clinicians from reading all of it, special tactics of scanning, selecting and reading medical articles are necessary. Priority should be given to original reports, meaning firsthand accounts of planned investigations, as they go through expert critical review before publication. This safeguard improves their clarity and usually keeps flawed research away. Furthermore one should read only original articles that have direct bearing on his ows clinical practice and with scientific rigor making the results likely to be true. Employment of these rules may reduce the relevant literature to an affordable size. Extraction of these articles depend on the regular surveillance of high-yield, high-circulation general medical journals and the specialty and subspecialty journals which are relevant to one's practice. Review articles may be helpful either as an initial approach to a subject whose current knowledge is beyond one's usual domain or as a source of references of original articles. Meta-analysis or the integration and statistical combination of the results of previous research may be a further and a most important advantage of reviews.

Marco Aurélio Lana-Peixoto

Professor Adjunto de Neurologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)

RESUMO

A grande profusão da literatura médica gerou a necessidade do desenvolvimento de técnicas de seleção e de leitura que permitem o acesso e a avaliação crítica dos trabalhos mais significativos em relação à atualização e ao aperfeiçoamento das nossas habilidades na prática diária. A prioridade está na leitura de artigos originais, ou seja, daqueles que relatam novas observações ou resultados de investigações planejadas. Por sua vez, os artigos originais devem ser selecionados a partir da avaliação de sua aplicabilidade à nossa prática específica e do rigor de sua metodologia. O acesso aos artigos originais relevantes ocorre por seleção dos periódicos que serão abordados. A leitura das principais revistas da especialidade, o manuseio das revistas gerais de maior circulação e com maior fator impacto, e a consulta regular aos Current Contents são os métodos mais eficazes de triar os artigos que serão então avaliados. A leitura de uma revista nacional da especialidade tem interesse para se acompanhar o desenvolvimento da neurologia no país e para o estudo da epidemiologia e das peculiaridades das doenças prevalentes em nosso meio. Os artigos de revisão da literatura são úteis apenas como abordagem geral de um tema, como fonte de referências de trabalhos originais ou quando contêm meta-análise dos artigos incluídos.

SUMMARY

To keep up to date with new advances in medical care and in the understanding of the disease process which affects their specific patients neurologists need to develop strategies for continuing education. They must be learners throughout their careers and the learning must be self-directed, active and independent. The best way to reach this goal is to devote regular time to the medical literature. However as the great volume of journal literature precludes clinicians from reading all of it, special tactics of scanning, selecting and reading medical articles are necessary. Priority should be given to original reports, meaning firsthand accounts of planned investigations, as they go through expert critical review before publication. This safeguard improves their clarity and usually keeps flawed research away. Furthermore one should read only original articles that have direct bearing on his ows clinical practice and with scientific rigor making the results likely to be true. Employment of these rules may reduce the relevant literature to an affordable size. Extraction of these articles depend on the regular surveillance of high-yield, high-circulation general medical journals and the specialty and subspecialty journals which are relevant to one's practice. Review articles may be helpful either as an initial approach to a subject whose current knowledge is beyond one's usual domain or as a source of references of original articles. Meta-analysis or the integration and statistical combination of the results of previous research may be a further and a most important advantage of reviews.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

Dr. Marco Aurélio Lama Peixoto Instituto Hilton Rocha - Av. Anel da Serra 1355 - 30210 Belo Horizonte MG - Brasil.

1. Bernier CL, Yerkey AN. Cogent Communication: Overcoming Information Overload. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979, p 39.
2. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull 1980, 87:442-449.
3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to road them and how to start read them critically. Can Med Assoc J 1981, 124:555-558.
4. Garfield E. Citation indexing for studying science. Nature 1970, 227:669-671.
5. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Nature 1971, 178:471-479.
6. Garfield E. The 1983 articles most cited in 1983 and 1984: 1. Life sciences. Curr Contents 1985, 28:3-18.
7. Garfield E. Which journals have the greatest impact? Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:313-320.
8. Glass GV. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976, 5:3-8.
9. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt G, Walker CJ, Sacktt DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: I. Why try to keep up sand how to get started. Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:149-153,
10. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt G, Walker CJ, Sackett DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: II. Deciding which journals to read regularly. Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:309-312.
11. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt G, Walker CJ, Sackett DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: III. Expanding the number of journals you read regularly. Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:474-478.
12. Houghton B. Scientific Periodicals: Their Historical Development, Characteristics and Control. Hamden: Linnet, 1974, p 106.
13. Huth EJ. How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1982, p 64.
14. Huth EJ. Needed: review articles with more scientific rigor. Ann Intern Med 1987, 106:470-471.
35. Light RJ, Smith PV. Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educ Rev 1971, 41:429-471.
16. Morgan PP. Review articles: 2. The literature jungle. Can Med Assoc J 1986, 134:98-99.
17. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987, 106:485-488.
18. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Can Med Assoc J 1988, 138:697-703.
19. Poynard T, Conn HD. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. Controlled Clin Trials 1985, 6:271-279.
20. Roland CG, Kirkpatrick RA. Time lapse between hypothesis and publication in medical sciences. N Engl J Med 1975, 292:1273-1276.
21. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Birk, VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987, 316:450-455.
22. Warren KS (ed). Coping with the Biomedical Literature: a Primer for the Scientist and the Clinician. New York: Praeger, 1981.

O neurologista e a literatura médica: o processo de educação interminável

The neurologist and the medical literature: the endless education process

Datas de Publicação

Publicação nesta coleção
22 Fev 2011
Data do Fascículo
Jun 1992

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[1] 1. Bernier CL, Yerkey AN. Cogent Communication: Overcoming Information Overload. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979, p 39.

[2] 2. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull 1980, 87:442-449.

[3] 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to road them and how to start read them critically. Can Med Assoc J 1981, 124:555-558.

[4] 4. Garfield E. Citation indexing for studying science. Nature 1970, 227:669-671.

[5] 5. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Nature 1971, 178:471-479.

[6] 6. Garfield E. The 1983 articles most cited in 1983 and 1984: 1. Life sciences. Curr Contents 1985, 28:3-18.

[7] 7. Garfield E. Which journals have the greatest impact? Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:313-320.

[8] 8. Glass GV. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 1976, 5:3-8.

[9] 9. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt G, Walker CJ, Sacktt DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: I. Why try to keep up sand how to get started. Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:149-153,

[10] 10. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt G, Walker CJ, Sackett DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: II. Deciding which journals to read regularly. Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:309-312.

[11] 11. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, Guyatt G, Walker CJ, Sackett DL. How to keep up with the medical literature: III. Expanding the number of journals you read regularly. Ann Intern Med 1986, 105:474-478.

[12] 12. Houghton B. Scientific Periodicals: Their Historical Development, Characteristics and Control. Hamden: Linnet, 1974, p 106.

[13] 13. Huth EJ. How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences. Philadelphia: ISI Press, 1982, p 64.

[14] 14. Huth EJ. Needed: review articles with more scientific rigor. Ann Intern Med 1987, 106:470-471.

[15] 35. Light RJ, Smith PV. Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educ Rev 1971, 41:429-471.

[16] 16. Morgan PP. Review articles: 2. The literature jungle. Can Med Assoc J 1986, 134:98-99.

[17] 17. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987, 106:485-488.

[18] 18. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Can Med Assoc J 1988, 138:697-703.

[19] 19. Poynard T, Conn HD. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. Controlled Clin Trials 1985, 6:271-279.

[20] 20. Roland CG, Kirkpatrick RA. Time lapse between hypothesis and publication in medical sciences. N Engl J Med 1975, 292:1273-1276.

[21] 21. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Birk, VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987, 316:450-455.

[22] 22. Warren KS (ed). Coping with the Biomedical Literature: a Primer for the Scientist and the Clinician. New York: Praeger, 1981.