Analysis of the study design and manuscript deficiencies in research articles submitted to Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Objective: To describe and analyse the study design and manuscript deficiencies in original research articles submitted to Emergency Medicine.

Methods: This was a retrospective, analytical study. Articles were enrolled if the reports of the Section Editor and two reviewers were available. Data were extracted from these reports only. Outcome measures were the mean number and nature of the deficiencies and the mean reviewers' assessment score.

Results: Fifty-seven articles were evaluated (28 accepted for publication, 19 rejected, 10 pending revision). The mean (+/- SD) number of deficiencies was 18.1 +/- 6.9, 16.4 +/- 6.5 and 18.4 +/- 6.7 for all articles, articles accepted for publication and articles rejected, respectively (P = 0.31 between accepted and rejected articles). The mean assessment scores (0-10) were 5.5 +/- 1.5, 5.9 +/- 1.5 and 4.7 +/- 1.4 for all articles, articles accepted for publication and articles rejected, respectively. Accepted articles had a significantly higher assessment score than rejected articles (P = 0.006). For each group, there was a negative correlation between the number of deficiencies and the mean assessment score (P > 0.05). Significantly more rejected articles ' em leader did not further our knowledge' (P = 0.0014) and ' em leader did not describe background information adequately' (P = 0.049). Many rejected articles had ' em leader findings that were not clinically or socially significant' (P = 0.07). Common deficiencies among all articles included ambiguity of the methods (77%) and results (68%), conclusions not warranted by the data (72%), poor referencing (56%), inadequate study design description (51%), unclear tables (49%), an overly long discussion (49%), limitations of the study not described (51%), inadequate definition of terms (49%) and subject selection bias (40%).

Conclusions: Researchers should undertake studies that are likely to further our knowledge and be clinically or socially significant. Deficiencies in manuscript preparation are more frequent than mistakes in study design and execution. Specific training or assistance in manuscript preparation is indicated.