Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors |
| |
| Authors: | Armen Yuri Gasparyan Lilit Ayvazyan Heather Blackmore George D Kitas |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Department of Rheumatology, Clinical Research Unit, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham, UK), Russell’s Hall Hospital, North Block, Dudley, West Midlands, DY1 2HQ, United Kingdom;(2) Department of Medical Chemistry, Yerevan State Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia;(3) Institute of Metabolic Sciences, Metabolic Research Laboratories, Addenbrookes Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom;(4) Arthritis Research UK (AR UK) Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom |
| |
| Abstract: | Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most
editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and
understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and
to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE,
Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship,
ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the
review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
