JAOA and The DO....do you read these?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

wpa096

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Just wondering how many people read these publications, and how you think the JAOA measures up to other peer reviewed medical journals?
 
Just wondering how many people read these publications, and how you think the JAOA measures up to other peer reviewed medical journals?

I read them both, because they're great ways to stay in touch with the profession. As I progress further in my OMT training I find I read more of the JAOA articles. It's just a thin, monthly magazine so it's not hard to plow through. It certainly doesn't stray far from OMM--whereas NEJM or JAMA are much broader in scope. IMO, it's almost an "apples and oranges" thing.
 
Do you feel it is a good thing for the JAOA to have a narrow focus on OMT? Is it supposed to be a specialty journal geared towards OMT?
 
Do you feel it is a good thing for the JAOA to have a narrow focus on OMT? Is it supposed to be a specialty journal geared towards OMT?

I don't know, but I do know that JAMA and NEJM and Annals and Lancet and BMJ and so on do a pretty good job at what they do. OMT doesn't show up much in those journals.

I think it's better to play to our strengths.
 
I do read them every month. I'm not sure I can really compare them to the other journals listed. It is EBM, but in a way i feel like its comparing apples and oranges.
 
I get both in the mail and send them right to the trash...too much frustration reading them.

The JAOA doesn't even come close to the standards of other peer reviewed journals, except perhaps one study per issue...but the relevance is minimal, often trying to explain something like cranial using some biochemical pathway that arguably in some round-about fashion has some impact on rhythmic impulses of the CNS via inflammation. ..blah blah

Perfect example was a study a yr or two ago using OMT to 'treat' AOM...the sample size was less then 10...5 I believe. Not exactly the standard for coming to any sort of conclusion of relevance.

"The DO" is just AOA propaganda, and does nothing but promote the misnomer that there's a "DO difference."

Want to 'stay in touch' with the profession, sure, flip through it, but it serves a better purpose as a coaster or propping up your bedpost. I believe the pages are laminated so might smell a little in your fireplace.
 
I get both in the mail and send them right to the trash...too much frustration reading them.

The JAOA doesn't even come close to the standards of other peer reviewed journals, except perhaps one study per issue...but the relevance is minimal, often trying to explain something like cranial using some biochemical pathway that arguably in some round-about fashion has some impact on rhythmic impulses of the CNS via inflammation. ..blah blah

Perfect example was a study a yr or two ago using OMT to 'treat' AOM...the sample size was less then 10...5 I believe. Not exactly the standard for coming to any sort of conclusion of relevance.

"The DO" is just AOA propaganda, and does nothing but promote the misnomer that there's a "DO difference."

Want to 'stay in touch' with the profession, sure, flip through it, but it serves a better purpose as a coaster or propping up your bedpost. I believe the pages are laminated so might smell a little in your fireplace.
homeboy, I think you are right on. It is sort of embarrassing.
 
I get both in the mail and send them right to the trash...too much frustration reading them.

The JAOA doesn't even come close to the standards of other peer reviewed journals, except perhaps one study per issue...but the relevance is minimal, often trying to explain something like cranial using some biochemical pathway that arguably in some round-about fashion has some impact on rhythmic impulses of the CNS via inflammation. ..blah blah

Perfect example was a study a yr or two ago using OMT to 'treat' AOM...the sample size was less then 10...5 I believe. Not exactly the standard for coming to any sort of conclusion of relevance.

What journal does meet your high standards?
Certainly not the NEJM: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114765430315252591.html
 
I will usually flip through them, very rarely find anything of interest in them. Of course, I married someone from my class, so I have TWO copies coming to my mailbox monthly... twice as much recycling!!
 
What journal does meet your high standards?
Certainly not the NEJM: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114765430315252591.html

Nothing usually; my standards are too high...

Not the NEJM, though...too much ridiculously specific science that loses sight of any clinical significance.

My point being merely that the JAOA is not a legit 'peer reviewed journal,' and that "The DO" has nothing of interest for those less inclined to buy hook line and sinker the nonsense the AOA promotes, it merely perpetuates the dogmas shoved down the throats of 1st and 2nd years.
 
Nothing usually; my standards are too high...

Not the NEJM, though...too much ridiculously specific science that loses sight of any clinical significance.

My point being merely that the JAOA is not a legit 'peer reviewed journal,' and that "The DO" has nothing of interest for those less inclined to buy hook line and sinker the nonsense the AOA promotes, it merely perpetuates the dogmas shoved down the throats of 1st and 2nd years.

Fair enough. I, too, think that The DO is nothing but a print method to promote AOA interests among DOs.

As for the JAOA not being a legit peer reviewed journal, I don't know enough about what criteria it uses or its selection process to make a fair judgement. It does have a review board, but maybe that board is forced to choose the best of the bad, meaning that maybe your beef is with the standards of osteopathic research in general.
 
Fair enough. I, too, think that The DO is nothing but a print method to promote AOA interests among DOs.

As for the JAOA not being a legit peer reviewed journal, I don't know enough about what criteria it uses or its selection process to make a fair judgement. It does have a review board, but maybe that board is forced to choose the best of the bad, meaning that maybe your beef is with the standards of osteopathic research in general.

There just isn't osteopathic research out there, and this ties to the fact that DO schools historically aren't tied to big research facilities and hospitals, plain and simple. Be that as it is, it's the best they have to offer, and I'm simply saying what they have to offer isn't much, so it's not worth reading. That's never going to change.
 
Nothing usually; my standards are too high...

Not the NEJM, though...too much ridiculously specific science that loses sight of any clinical significance.


Oh man, you've got much to learn.
 
Both of them are awful. And I'm embarrassed by the fact that we consider ourselves equals to our allopathic brethren yet do very little as far as putting out significant research and these two journals prove it.

NEJM is my bible. Their clinical progress and review articles synthesize all of the latest research into easy to read and easy to apply articles. JAMA is weak. Lancet and BMJ are pretty solid, but I just tend to find myself going to NEJM most of the time because their website is easy to navigate and readily available to me. I wish I could say the same about the JAOA...
 
How do we unsubscribe to these two pieces of junk and save some trees?
 
I do like the fact that they recently started sending us e-mails of the latest topics of the JAOA so perhaps they could just move it all on-line to save the trees
 
I personally read them every month, but I'm a first year and still getting a feel for what is and isn't out there in terms of research and networks.

As someone with a strong biotech research background, I have to agree with those who say the JAOA is laughable in terms of it being a peer-reviewed journal. Until we get more schools affiliated with large research institutions though, I'm afraid it's the best we've got.
 
Top