- Joined
- Jul 15, 2007
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 1
Not to be a hater... but do you find the majority of journal articles in PMR-journals boring??
PMR journals interesting???
- Thread starter MSKmonky
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,182
- Reaction score
- 41
Archives takes me about 5 minutes a month to read - 1-2 articles a month even remotely clinically relavent to me.
I only get it because it comes with membership. Some months I don't even open it.
Any bets on whether our new journal will be any better?
I only get it because it comes with membership. Some months I don't even open it.
Any bets on whether our new journal will be any better?
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 115
as far as i know, we don't have ANYTHING like this in our profession yet. this chiropractic online "journal" has fundamental and relavent knowledge. why can't we do this too? check out this list of 2007 "issues": http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/25/index.html
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 2
2 questions: One, is the other journal American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation that boring too? Second, I saw on Wikipedia's entry on PM&R that Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation was being replaced in January 2009 by something called "PM&R, The journal of injury, function and rehabilitation". I was wondering if you all knew anything about this, and if it was going to be more clinically relevant than Archives.
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting.. a new journal. Any idea on how this will be different than the original or is it just a name-change?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 2
Archives is not being replaced. There will be a new journal, but the Archives will still be the Archives.
The new journal is supposed to be more clinically relevant to practitioners, with more review articles, and broader musculoskeletal coverage.
In fairness to the Archives, its articles reflect the articles submitted to it. There are a lot of therapy-research articles submitted (and accepted), but what do you expect when we share the journal with the ACRM? There are a number of neurorehab-oriented articles in the Archives that may be of limited interest to musculoskeletal medicine-oriented physiatrists. Is it realistic to expect that the new journal will find a balance of content that satisfies the interests of the diverse base of physiatric practitioners?
Probably not. Then again, it will likely do better at publishing articles of broader interest to the physiatrist readership than the Archives.
The new journal is supposed to be more clinically relevant to practitioners, with more review articles, and broader musculoskeletal coverage.
In fairness to the Archives, its articles reflect the articles submitted to it. There are a lot of therapy-research articles submitted (and accepted), but what do you expect when we share the journal with the ACRM? There are a number of neurorehab-oriented articles in the Archives that may be of limited interest to musculoskeletal medicine-oriented physiatrists. Is it realistic to expect that the new journal will find a balance of content that satisfies the interests of the diverse base of physiatric practitioners?
Probably not. Then again, it will likely do better at publishing articles of broader interest to the physiatrist readership than the Archives.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,758
- Reaction score
- 86
The ACRM and the AAPM&R used to share ownership of the Archives and the Am J of PM&R was put out by the AAP. The new journal "PM&R" was unveiled at the annual assembly in Boston - this journal will be the official journal of the AAPM&R. The ACRM will continue to publish the Archives. (A lot of political stuff happened btwn the ACRM and the AAPM&R but the end result I think will benefit both parties)
The new journal is supposed to have a more clinical focus with articles that should be of more interest to the practicing physiatrist. It is NOT going to be exclusively on MSK topics. The editorial board is quite diverse and represents physiatrists in academics, private practice, inpatient, outpatient, etc. Dr. Weinstein is brilliant and full of energy so I think it will be great. They are soliciting articles - so it's really up to us to start contributing to our sparse literature!!
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,182
- Reaction score
- 41
Both Archives and AJPMR seem to only get people submitting studies that were done in the style of a senior project - a "whoopee, look what I spent a few weeks doing!" or post-docs working with an attending at a VA somewhere.
Those of us doing real medicine don't have the time to do clinically relavent research. Those with the time often don't have access to anyone other than academic patients, who in no way resemble any community I've worked in since residency.
These are the exact reasons why there is little EBM for pain procedures and most of what we do in PM&R. That plus these groups tend to be too heterogeneous to expect significant findings.
I could publish several clinically relevant articles a year, such as outcome studies, dosing trials for steroid injections, duration of benefit trials, etc. I just don't have the time, money or staff to do it, nor anything resembling a review board or statistics dept.
Those of us doing real medicine don't have the time to do clinically relavent research. Those with the time often don't have access to anyone other than academic patients, who in no way resemble any community I've worked in since residency.
These are the exact reasons why there is little EBM for pain procedures and most of what we do in PM&R. That plus these groups tend to be too heterogeneous to expect significant findings.
I could publish several clinically relevant articles a year, such as outcome studies, dosing trials for steroid injections, duration of benefit trials, etc. I just don't have the time, money or staff to do it, nor anything resembling a review board or statistics dept.
- Joined
- May 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,352
- Reaction score
- 738
Then please feel free to submit your data to the existing registries that NASS and ISIS have put together. While heterogeneous, it is a start. I am not sure what ASIPP has in terms of registries, but I am sure they must also have some formof data repository.
The excuse of I don't have time, staff, or energy is great until Medicare and the third party payers turn off the spigot due to the very lack of EBM to which you refer. Then we will all have far too much time and nowhere near enough money.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 13,168
- Reaction score
- 7,763
Most of what is published in the Archives appears to be recycled master's level research projects with only a glimmer of clinical relevance or "so what?" research like, "Patients with TBI who are depressed have more trouble with community integration compared TBI patients who are not depressed; unless the depressed TBI patients have good social support then it's a little easier, but still not as good as having a TBI and not being depressed at all..."
Wow...I never would have guessed it...I think that medical students checking out the field read this stuff and their eyes begin to gloss over.
I don't see much "cumulation" of rehabilitation research either; it doesn't seem to ever "go" anywhere. It's not like first someone finds a gene, then it's protein, then a receptor, then an agonist for that receptor, and then a pill! Rehab research seems so compartmentalized and siloed. The state of the art of the science is stuck in the descriptive stage.
Some of the more interesting applied research using UDS or FIM data is written in such administrative/wonkish gobbley-gook that it sucks your soul out of you just reading the abstract! If the new journal is going to publish those kinds of articles they need to insist that it is written in a more user-friendly fashion.
Wow...I never would have guessed it...I think that medical students checking out the field read this stuff and their eyes begin to gloss over.
I don't see much "cumulation" of rehabilitation research either; it doesn't seem to ever "go" anywhere. It's not like first someone finds a gene, then it's protein, then a receptor, then an agonist for that receptor, and then a pill! Rehab research seems so compartmentalized and siloed. The state of the art of the science is stuck in the descriptive stage.
Some of the more interesting applied research using UDS or FIM data is written in such administrative/wonkish gobbley-gook that it sucks your soul out of you just reading the abstract! If the new journal is going to publish those kinds of articles they need to insist that it is written in a more user-friendly fashion.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 2
No question, some/many of the Archives articles ARE research projects of masters and doctorate level therapist-trainees at university campuses around the country. (It seems they all have to do a research project to get their degrees. Regrettably, they elect to submit some of these to the Archives.)
Further, I echo some of drusso's sentiments regarding the Archives' stipulations regarding the format and writing style. In its attempt to achieve better methodological rigor in its manuscripts, the formatting/methodological requirements have NOT materially changed the content of the papers submitted or accepted. Previously, we had many boring papers that were shorter, and less consistent with descriptions of their methodologies. Now we have more consistent (and longer) formatting and more complete (and longer) descriptions, but not better relevance or interesting content. Moreover, for those of us with the misfortune of ever submitting a paper to the Archives, you run an above-average risk of catching ill-informed/extremely opinionated reviewers, waiting an above-average duration for your reviews, and then waiting an above-average duration to see them in print.
I have given up on the Archives. I scan it, but rarely reference it, and almost never submit papers to it (the only time is when a senior author wants to submit it there, or we have encountered rejections elsewhere). In collaborative projects, I discourage co-authors from submitting to the Archives for these same reasons. I have had better success with other journals of higher circulation and citation indices, and have waited shorter durations for better, more reasonable reviews.
Finally, I understand PMR4MSK's sentiments regarding the clinical time constraints that limit a clinician's ability to contribute to the literature. It is very challenging, but it can be done. It does take some start-up time and organizational skills, but there are ways to structure one's clinical practice/records in a sufficiently systematic way to facilitate conducting specific projects in a clinical practice. For prospective projects that involve issues such as randomization and consent, this is a level of magnitude more difficult, but even these can be conducted in private practice settings with enough support, particularly industry support. Bottom line: It takes time, at least some extra time for most of us who are already over-committed in terms of time. I make the time because I feel obligated to share observations from my own learning curve that can potentially help the practices of colleagues, with data that is generated/supported from my own practice. I find myself especially motivated to challenge articles that I disagree with; I just prefer to do it with data rather than letters-to-the-editor. If you start with smaller, more "digestible" projects, you may find it doesn't take as much time as you fear.
If I ever return to the academic setting, I will teach a course on this. Maybe I will do this at the AAPMR meeting one day.
Further, I echo some of drusso's sentiments regarding the Archives' stipulations regarding the format and writing style. In its attempt to achieve better methodological rigor in its manuscripts, the formatting/methodological requirements have NOT materially changed the content of the papers submitted or accepted. Previously, we had many boring papers that were shorter, and less consistent with descriptions of their methodologies. Now we have more consistent (and longer) formatting and more complete (and longer) descriptions, but not better relevance or interesting content. Moreover, for those of us with the misfortune of ever submitting a paper to the Archives, you run an above-average risk of catching ill-informed/extremely opinionated reviewers, waiting an above-average duration for your reviews, and then waiting an above-average duration to see them in print.
I have given up on the Archives. I scan it, but rarely reference it, and almost never submit papers to it (the only time is when a senior author wants to submit it there, or we have encountered rejections elsewhere). In collaborative projects, I discourage co-authors from submitting to the Archives for these same reasons. I have had better success with other journals of higher circulation and citation indices, and have waited shorter durations for better, more reasonable reviews.
Finally, I understand PMR4MSK's sentiments regarding the clinical time constraints that limit a clinician's ability to contribute to the literature. It is very challenging, but it can be done. It does take some start-up time and organizational skills, but there are ways to structure one's clinical practice/records in a sufficiently systematic way to facilitate conducting specific projects in a clinical practice. For prospective projects that involve issues such as randomization and consent, this is a level of magnitude more difficult, but even these can be conducted in private practice settings with enough support, particularly industry support. Bottom line: It takes time, at least some extra time for most of us who are already over-committed in terms of time. I make the time because I feel obligated to share observations from my own learning curve that can potentially help the practices of colleagues, with data that is generated/supported from my own practice. I find myself especially motivated to challenge articles that I disagree with; I just prefer to do it with data rather than letters-to-the-editor. If you start with smaller, more "digestible" projects, you may find it doesn't take as much time as you fear.
If I ever return to the academic setting, I will teach a course on this. Maybe I will do this at the AAPMR meeting one day.
Similar threads
