RSS-Feed abonnieren
PDF herunterladen
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1774375
Human Orthopaedic Articles Convey Information Differently than Veterinary Orthopaedic Articles: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional Analysis
Abstract
The objective of this analysis was to compare the length and number of active voice sentences in human orthopaedic articles to veterinary orthopaedic articles. The goal is to provide authors and reviewers with objective, evidence-based guidelines to critically evaluate those two aspects of style of veterinary manuscripts during the writing phase of research and the review process. We used word counts and the percent of active voice sentences of the introduction sections and discussion sections in 15 randomly chosen veterinary orthopaedic clinical trial articles and 15 randomly chosen human orthopaedic clinical trial articles. Veterinary introduction sections were on average 193 words longer than human introduction sections (p = 0.001). Veterinary discussion sections were on average 370 words longer than human discussion sections. Veterinary introduction sections had on average 14.4 percent fewer active voice sentences than human introduction sections (p = 0.003). Veterinary discussion sections had on average 8.3 percent fewer active voice sentences than human discussion sections. Our conclusion is that human articles are written in a different style from veterinary clinical trial articles, which could be written with fewer words and more active sentences.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 11. April 2023
Angenommen: 12. Juli 2023
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
13. September 2023
© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Freeling BS, Doubleday ZA, Dry MJ, Semmler C, Connell SD. Better writing in scientific publications builds reader confidence and understanding. Front Psychol 2021; 12: 714321
- 2 Hillier A, Kelly RP, Klinger T. Narrative style influences citation frequency in climate change science. PLoS One 2016; 11 (12) e0167983
- 3 Freeling B, Doubleday ZA, Connell SD. Opinion: how can we boost the impact of publications? Try better writing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019; 116 (02) 341-343
- 4 Nature Editors. 2011 How to write your paper. Nature, London. Zugriff am 01. Dezember 2021 unter: https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/for-authors/write
- 5 Crichton M. Sounding board: medical obfuscation: structure and function. N Engl J Med 1975; 293 (24) 1257-1259
- 6 University of California Staff. 2021 Scientific writing: active and passive voice. University of California. Accessed November 11, 2021, at: https://gwc.ucr.edu/document/scientific-writing-active-and-passive-voice
- 7 Feng S, Legault J, Yang L, Zhu J, Shao K, Yang Y. Differences in grammatical processing strategies for active and passive sentences: An fMRI study. J Neurolinguist 2015; 33: 104-117
- 8 Hamasaki T, Asakura K, Evans SR, Sugimoto T, Sozu T. Group-sequential strategies in clinical trials with multiple co-primary outcomes. Stat Biopharm Res 2015; 7 (01) 36-54
- 9 Pennsylvania State University staff. 2021 Frequentist methods: O'Brien-Fleming, Pocock, Haybittle-Peto. Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania. Accessed November 7, 2021, at: https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat509/lesson/9/9.5
- 10 British Medical Journal editors. 2021 Resources for authors, house style. BMJ, London. Accessed November 7, 2021, at: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/bmj-house-style