This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Matthew Menken, MD

Arch Neurol. 1990;47(11):1173.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Physicians spend an average of 225 hours per year on continuing education, of which 150 hours are devoted to journal reading.¹ Epidemiologists at McMaster University (Hamilton, Canada) have identified 10 possible reasons to read clinical journals, and four guides to help the overburdened reader screen the literature for the few valid articles that are applicable in one's own practice.² Given the large number of clinical journals, and the many reasons to read them, it is noteworthy that so many journals limit the scope of virtually all published material to recent advances in bioscience research. Those aspects of medical care that reflect the humanity of the doctor, the patient, and their interaction, are not emphasized.

This might be called The Inverse Practice Law: clinical journals are least interested in the most clinical articles, the anecdotes. The question is whether the information and insight obtained in practice are too "soft" . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
1527 Highway 27 Somerset, NJ 08873

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?