Writing for the Journal of Wrist Surgery

We made it. The Journal of Wrist Surgery (JWS) has now been in existence for one year. We have our inaugural issue under our belt, and we are striding purposefully into the future. We have made some significant changes that include a new editorial manager submission site managed by the capable hands of Roswitha Nottebaum, along with the guidance of Graham Brumsfield, our senior acquisitions manager. This has streamlined the submission process and improved the handling of revised manuscripts. Since the JWS is an international journal, maintaining a strict standard for proper English grammar and syntax is crucial for clear and effective communication, not only for the non-English speaking authors but for the native English speakers as well. The responsibility for this largely falls to the author(s) but we welcome the recent addition of Kenneth Chumbley and his capable staff for their help with the copyediting process. We are striving to make the JWS more interesting to our readers and will start with the publication of the abstracts for the annual International Wrist Investigators Workshop beginning with the Chicago meeting 2012, in addition to listing the upcoming international Wrist meetings. Similar to other journals, we have adopted the use of templates for each type of manuscript. This will bring uniformity to each paper as well as provide specific guidance for the authors in the organization of the manuscript. The emphasis on evidence-based medicine has led to the increasing use of validated outcome measures, more sophisticated statistical approaches, and the reporting of well-formulated research plans such as the CONSORT guidelines[1] in clinical research; the Cochrane guidelines for Systematic reviews (http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook); the STROBE Initiative guidelines (http://www.strobe-statement.org) for case control, cohort, cross-sectional, and observational study planning; and the QUORUM[2] (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) guidelines for Meta-analyses. The organization of the scientific manuscript will generally follow the conventional format of Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion, although Surveys and Meta-analyses require an individualized format. This has been succinctly summarized in the STROBE checklist ([Table 1]).

Table 1 STROBE Checklist of items that should be included in a scientific manuscript

Title and abstract (a) Indicate the study's design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract (b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found Introduction Background/rationale. Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported Objectives. State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses Methods Study design. Present key elements of study design early in the paper Setting. Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection  (a) Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case ascertainment and control selection  (b) Give the rationale for the choice of cases and controls Participants. For matched studies, give matching criteria and the number of controls per case Variables. Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria if applicable Data sources/measurement. For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group Bias. Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias Study size. Explain how the study size was arrived at Quantitative variables. Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses; if applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why Statistical methods  (a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding  (b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions  (c) Explain how missing data were addressed  (d) If applicable, explain how matching of cases and controls was addressed  (e) Describe any sensitivity analyses Results Participants  (a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study—e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analyzed  (b) Give reasons for nonparticipation at each stage  (c) Consider use of a flow diagram Descriptive data  (a) Give characteristics of study participants (e.g., demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders  (b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest Outcome data Report numbers in each exposure category or summary measures of exposure Main results  (a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (e.g., 95% confidence interval); make clear which confounders were adjusted and why they were included  (b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized  (c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period Other analyses Report other analyses done—e.g., analyses of subgroups, interactions, and sensitivity analyses Discussion Key results. Summarize key results with reference to study objectives Limitations. Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision; discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias Interpretation Give a cautious overall interpretation of results that considers objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence Generalizability. Discuss the generalizability (external validity) of the study results Other information Funding Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based

• References

• 1 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 1987-1991
• 2 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 1448-1454
• 3 Manske R. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. J Hand Surg 2006; 31: 1051-1055
• 4 Brand RA. Writing for clinical orthopaedics and related research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 239-247