- 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?
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Nothing usually; my standards are too high...
Not the NEJM, though...too much ridiculously specific science that loses sight of any clinical significance.
Well teach me fast, oh wise one, 'cuz I'll be out of here in 3 months.Oh man, you've got much to learn.