1988
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-198801000-00006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Types of medical writing and teaching of writing in U.S. medical schools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
19
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…5 Guidance from the literature regarding writing a National Institutes of Health (NIH) starter grant proposal is relatively sparse.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…5 Guidance from the literature regarding writing a National Institutes of Health (NIH) starter grant proposal is relatively sparse.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5 Guidance from the literature regarding writing a National Institutes of Health (NIH) starter grant proposal is relatively sparse. 6 While there is a need for including grant writing as a requirement in biomedical graduate coursework, 7,8 detailed and specific writing instruction is typically not part of formal graduate coursework at research-intensive universities.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As case reports are in many instances simply a written conveyance of a patient’s presentation and management, poorly written case reports may well reflect a broader inability to communicate effectively with colleagues [30]. Subpar writing has even been associated with increased litigation and reduced compliance from patients [31,32]. …”
Section: Further Considerations For Case Report Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, writing is rarely taught in medical school. In a 1985 survey, only 11 of 100 American medical schools offered some type of composition course for biomedical research papers 1. Pierson2 studied manuscript rejections and found that one of the major reasons was poor preparation (eg, over interpretation of results, text difficult to follow).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%