Transcript Title

How to write the paper
Rhinology will not refuse
Wytske Fokkens
Year 2011:
Rhinology submitted: 271
Rhinology accepted: 53
Chance: 53/271 = 20%
Good paper
Good review of the literature
Good data
Strong statistics
Clear presentation
Though provoking discussion
(Co-) Editor
• After rapid screening, the paper : + Is acceptable as it is + Cannot
be accepted for publication because of :
- Fatal flaw in
experimental design (10-20% of papers)
- Findings are largely
repetitive of previously published information - Findings represent
minor incremental advance over previous information
- Trial of
a new drug closely related to a previously described one, with no
significantly different features or advantages
- Poor english,
leading to incomprehensible manuscript + Has been sent to reviewer
Title, abstract and keywords
• title = advertisement for your paper
– do not promise things you can not deliver
• write the abstract last
• title and abstract are used by the reviewer and
reader to have a general idea about the paper
• keywords are essential to find your paper: use
MESH terms and try them out in pubmed
General comments
• Although the manuscript is well written
and interesting I think it would better fit
in a Journal with the main focus
Review Summary
of research
Originality of
al Design
and Quality
of Data:
General questions
Is there any question of violation of the journal's policy on
research involving animals and human beings?
 Yes
 No
Is an editorial needed?
 Yes
 No
If yes, will you volunteer to write the editorial within a
 Yes
 No
 Accept
 Manuscript Requires Revision
 Reject
Would you be willing to review a revision of this
 Yes
 No
Please enter the reasons for your recommendations as to the acceptability or
rejection for this paper
Do not include any statement that will indicate your judgment as to the
acceptability of the paper. If possible, submit your comments in the following
1)General comments
2)Specific comments for revision: a) major; b) minor.
Review Summary
of research
al Design
and Quality
of Data:
Significance of research
Deviated nasal septum hinders
intranasal sprays: A computer
simulation study
Sinonasal malignant
analysis of 115 cases
Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
Training Courses: Benefit and
A Multicenter Evaluation to
Systematically Improve Surgical
Different Reactions of Human
Nasal and Eustachian Tube
Mucosa After Hyperbaric Oxygen
Exposure – A Pilot Study
Is There Any Difference In Sexual
Function Scores In Patients
With Pollen and Mite Induced
Allergic Rhinitis?
University of Pennsylvania smell
identification test: Application to
Turkish population
Originality of Research:
The added value is rather limited. It
looks to me as an open door, which
is explicited.
In which type of setting could this
questionnaire be useful?
This study is well performed but the
novelty of the results is not very
I do not see how this work may
improve knowledge or clinical
As of a first impression, the subject
has no novelty to show nor does the
therapeutic modality described.
This is a very important paper in the
clinical setting.
This is groundbreaking reseach for
learning more about central olfactory
The paper will add to the literature in
a useful way.
This is a well written paper
describing a study that I wish I had
done myself!
Experimental Design
and Quality of Data:
• It is a real pity to waste so much energy
and resources to perform this study
because results are of no real value due
to a flawed study design.
Experimental Design
and Quality of Data:
• the study design does not allow to answer the
hypothesis put forward
• Several major methodological concerns arise when
reading the manuscript
• I think the paper is well written and ambitious.
However, there are some major flaws in the design
and presentation of the data.
• What has to be written down to repeat
the experiment with the same outcome
or understandable other outcome
• Why, Who, what, where, when, and how
• Use (cochrane) checklists
follow the international
standards or statements
The CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of
RCT’s, to enable readers to understand the trial design and correctly
interpret the results (
Prisma stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (
STROBE statement
The STROBE statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational
Studies in Epidemiology is a good checklist for preparing a publication
of an observational study ( (in english!)
• Unfortunately, I cannot recommend publication of this
paper, as I really am not sure what it is trying to do.
• The reason(s) why the authors decided to look for a
correlation between nasal eosinophils and nasal airflow in
children with only rhinitis and rhinitis and asthma cannot
be found neither in the introduction nor in the discussion.
The study population is ill-defined
Too little subjects per group
Groups are not comparable
Almost half of the patients in the data base were excluded
from the analyses
• Definitions of the disease groups, inclusion and exclusion
• There is no indication of exclusion criteria for this study
• The heterogeneity of the patient population represents a
draw-back of the study hampering strong conclusions of
the study.
• Please define what you mean by `no recurrence?`
• The definition of allergic rhinitis and asthma should
be included in the study, as well as the techniques
and reagents for measurement of ECP and EPO
• The randomisation method is not described, as well
as the blinding procedure.
• What is meant by `blade baseline`
M & M Where
• It is not clear where the biopsies were
• One cannot investigate if there is a
higher exposure by doing
measurements in one area only
• Why were cultures always obtained
from maxillary sinus
M & M When
• What provocation and symptom scoring intervals were used
• it is not clear whether the study was carried on when the
patients are symptomatic or not.
• The time interval between the first and second lavage is not
clear stated.
• It would be useful to indicate how many months of the year
• nasal lavage should follow acoustic rhinometry measurements
to avoid generating a reaction of the mucosa by the lavage
itself that may influence the measurements with the rhinometer
• Both questionnaires are not validated
• Surgical technique is not clear - how many branches
have been detected in every procedure, how many
branches have been clipped
• How many courses were administered over what time
frame before failure was determined
• How does your MEMM type 2b differ from the classic
Caldwell Luc operation?
• How was recurrence of nasal polyps determined?
Did the data show a normal distribution, otherwise non-parametric tests
should be used
You used a t-test without stating that the assumptions for this test are
not violated.
Many tests were done on each polymorphism and specific allergens:
wouldn’t a correction for multiple testing have been appropriate in this
You just mention 3 statistical methods without any indication on how
will you use them
• The chapter "results" is written very poorly
• All 42 patients should be included in the final
analysis. The remaining 17 should be responders
instead of “no users”.
• In the results the discussion of efficacy needs a more
detailed explanation
• on page "Only 15% (90) of respondents lived alone,
• The discussion is solely focused on the results of the study
misregarding that there may be other studies that have
investigated the described issues.
• Discussion is poor: it is mainly a quick list of results. A true
discussion of obtained results is lacking. Negative results
(eye symptoms) are not discussed
• The manuscript is rewarding - however, the authors
are kindly asked to moderate the respective
speculations e.g. by changing the title and / or
shortening the paragraph `discussion`
Conclusions based on results
• Cannot claim this based on these results, the small
sample size and the methodological flaws of this study
• The authors conclude that .... treatment attenuates the
response to nasal allergen challenge with respect to PNIF.
However they do not discuss the magnitude of this effect,
nor have they investigate the effect on nasal symptoms
such as blockage
• I think this is a very questionable conclusion not backed
up by the data shown in the ms.
• The final conclusion should be based solely on the data
Tables and figures
• Figure 1 cannot be read in it's present pdf format
• table 2 and fig 2 are different presentations of the
same data.
• Figure 2 provides no further relevant information as
given in the text. This figure should be omitted.
• Figure1. Not clear. It should include a legend briefly
explaining the results presented. Why the numbers of
subjects do not correspond to those presented in the
methods section.
• Unfortunately the Tables which represent an essential part
of the results are not included in the manuscript, making an
assessment impossible.
• The numbers of patients in the tables do not match in
between tables
• 25 subjects were enrolled; minus 5 (ineligible), minus 2
(withdrawn) = 18 Only 16 subjects have completed the
study. What happened to the other 2?
• There is no mentioning of written informed consent
• The literature in this manuscript is limited lacking many
important papers
• The paper has multiple errors in English grammar,
which is disturbing. Please revise the text according
to proper language.
• Some english sentences seem to be written in less
fluent english. A native speaker and writer could filter
out these irregularities with ease.
• In addition, a lot of typing errors or wrong words
needs to be corrected and the text would benefit from
comments of a medical expert native speaker.
Take Home
• use helicopter view
• see your paper as the reviewer will see
it. Review your own paper, be critical
• follow the international standards or
statements (consort, prisma, strobe)