Our house style is not static but is a living thing, as is our language; it undergoes continual refinement and updating. This specific guide pertains to the Knowledge Summary article type. Please consult the main style guide in addition to this one to ensure you are following the house style.
Please talk to us about anything you think needs to be included or amended.
Clinical bottom line
When answering the ‘Category of Research’ and ‘Strength of Evidence’ questions respond with a single word answer, i.e. ‘Treatment’ or ‘Prognosis’ for the former and ‘Weak’ or ‘Moderate’ for the latter, rather than responding with a full sentence.
Do not include direct citations when discussing the appraised evidence in the clinical bottom line. Instead, refer to the ‘first/second/third’ (etc) study as appropriate.
For further detailed guidance on writing a clinical bottom line follow this link.
Summary of the evidence
As the Knowledge Summary template guidance states these summary tables should be clear, concise, and balanced.
Summary of evidence tables should be listed alphabetically.
To aid reader comprehension refrain from using extra formatting within the table, such as bold/italic fonts for emphasis, asterisks, and tables. In addition, avoid using subheadings. Standard lines or bullet-points of prose should suffice when structuring your text.
As with the clinical bottom line do not cite studies within the table. All discussion should pertain to the paper being appraised.
Avoid the use of second-order and third-order bullet point lists, as these are difficult to translate into XML format, via which your paper is indexed in PubMedCentral.
Interventions
Please note the original study population before any subsequent exclusions. Clearly state the target population’s species.
If any of the listed treatment groups are not relevant to the PICO (and your appraisal, therefore) state clearly to the reader that they will not be discussed further, i.e. ‘Outcomes in [group B] will not be discussed further as they do not relate to the PICO.
Limitations
When assessing limitations ensure your discussion concerns the overall study design, as opposed to the limitations of the study in relation to your specific PICO.
Be careful not to errantly deem a sample size ‘small’ when it is proportionate to the field of research it is in.
If conflicts of interest are present do not single out authors by name as this could place undue significance on the conflict. Only include objective details about the conflict. For example, the following is appropriate
‘The study was funded by [Company Name], the manufacturer of [trade name (generic name)]. One author was the sponsor of the study and an employee of the pharmaceutical company. This sponsor prepared the study’s design, was involved in monitoring, reporting and analysing results and writing the publication drafts.’
Strength of evidence
Include one word only (i.e. ‘Strong’), like the clinical bottom line.
Appraisal, application and reflection
Be clear whom you are referring to when writing about the ‘authors.’ Are they the ‘study’s authors’ or ‘the author(s) of this Knowledge Summary?’
Include citations where appropriate.
Methodology – Literature Search
Databases searched and dates covered
A minimum of two databases must be used in your search, one of which is CAB Abstracts.
List both the database and platform used, e.g. CAB Abstracts on OVID Platform 1973–Week 1 2024.
Search strategy
Include the exact search you used without error, so it is replicable for the reader.
Dates searches performed
Give the date of the most recent search. This should be one date, not multiple for different databases.
Exclusion/Inclusion Criteria
Do not duplicate criteria. For instance, if you write ‘Papers not written in English’ under the exclusion criteria you do not need to write ‘Papers written in English’ under the inclusion criteria, as this is implied by the former criterion.
References
See the main style guide [linked here].