LINK ABSTRACT
Abstract
The Abstract achieves more visibility and distribution that the article per se, and this is way it should present the essential information of the article. In the CSP, the Summary is limited to 1,700 characters (including spaces), which makes its writing a challenge.
The Abstract is written after the article is ready, but it is not a copy and paste of loose sentences. It is a summary of what is most important, and should draw the reader to read the full article. Often it is the only section of the article that is read. CSP does not adopt a structured summary, because it receives different types of articles. Typically, the Abstract should present the goals, the method, the main results and the conclusion.
In the conclusion, avoid clichés such as “more research on the theme is necessary”, “the results should be taken with caution” or “the results of this study may be useful for the design of strategies for prevention”. At the end of the Abstract, describe in one sentence your conclusion about how your results helped responding to the goals of the study. Try to indicate the contribution of the results from this study for the knowledge about the theme that was investigated.
LINK 3 REVIEW
Review:
Critical review of the literature on issues related to Population Health (maximum of 8,000 words and 5 illustrations).
Systematic reviews follow their own methodology templates, starting from a specific question, defining a strategy for a proper search of references, and that may be replicated, establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria of relevant studies, assessing the risk of bias of the studies included in the review, and finally, summarizing the evidences found, including their implications and limitations, in such a way as to point to future avenues for professional practice, public and/or research policies. We highly recommend that systematic reviews comply with the guidelines outlined on the checklist of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,
The selection of databases to be searched should be compatible with the subject of the systematic review. For instance, for searches on general medical issues, we expect the inclusion of, at least, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Reviews of issues related to nursing, psychology/psychiatry, and complementary medicine should include also databases CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED, respectively. Further details on the selection of databases, as well as of other methodological aspects for a proper development of systematic reviews may be found in and
The assessment of quality/risk of bias of the studies included in the systematic reviews is a very important step in this type of review. To assess this dimension in clinical trials we recommend the tool developed by Cochrane Collaboration. For the assessment of quality/risk of bias of observational studies included in systematic reviews, we recommend one of the following tools: a) Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies; or b) Research Triangle Institute item Bank (http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/414/1612/RTI-item-bank-bias-precision-130805.pdf).
We are particularly interested in reviews that address interventions in Public Health, including health care. We acknowledge that this field is in the process of development, and that there are a number of questions about the best way to conduct such studies, which require maturation. This fact will be taken into account during the evaluation of this type of review which we are willing to foster. We also suggest, as possible references for authors interested in this type of investigation chapter 3 of the book “Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking review in health care” <associate the link for and the material “Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews” of the Institute of Medicine.
On the other hand, we are also interested in other types of reviews – narrative and integrative – which should present a comprehensive perspective of a Public Health-related topic. These reviews are expected to summarize recent developments, the state-of-the-art, the dilemmas and the gaps in knowledge related to the reviewed topic.
LINK 4 ESSAYS
Essays
The academic Essay is an original text that develops an argument about a well-circumscribed theme, and may have up to 8,000 words. It should present a title, a 300-character abstract, Introduction, body of the text, Conclusion and References. The author may defend a thesis about the selected theme, or answer a question. Either the thesis or the question should have their relevance and originality grounded in a dialogue with the state-of-the-art of the theme already in the Introduction. The sections that form the essay are free, but should be coherent among them, and present the sequence of arguments that support the thesis or back the answer to the question formulated. The reasoning should be supported, preferably, by published theoretical references and/or empirical articles. There should be a conclusion of final concluding remarks about the formulated question.
LINK 5 METHODOLOGIC ISSUES
Methodologic Issues
For this section, complete articles of unprecedented research will be considered, as well as review articles that focus on methodological analysis, comparison or development for investigations in population health.
A typical article would be the proposition of a new methodology for data analysis. It should present a sound justification of the proposition, and describe comparison with other available methods for the type of analysis in question. Comparisons can be made with both, simulated data, preferably as a method-validation study, and actual data, which will serve as example for the readers to have an idea of how the methodology can be employed in the real world, and also of possible difficulties.
The review articles should address current and relevant issues in the field, preferably approaching a set of methodologies that may be pooled and compared, indicating qualities and limitations of each one, and making recommendations on their proper use. Examples should be provided, for the reader to have an idea of their day-to-day uses.
‘Tutorial’-type articles can be considered, when they deal with the implementation of non-trivial methodologies, preferably in open-code programs or programing languages.
Another possible modality is the Brief Communication, in the form of a technical note in this section, and will address some methodological detail or brief implementation of a tool that is relevant enough, but without the contents for a full article. The articles that cover only the initial stages of validation of measurement tools should be submitted in this format.
LINK 1 ETIOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN EPIDEMIOLOGY
Quantitative articles
Ex: Etiologic study
Abstract
The abstract should essentially present the goals of the study, a basic description of the methods used, the main results, and a conclusion.
Unless when strictly necessary, avoid using the abstract to present generic information about the state-of-the-art knowledge of the theme of the study, these should be included in the Introduction of the article.
In the description of methods, present the design of the study and focus on the description of the aspects related to the investigated population, basic information on the assessment of the core variables (questionnaires and instruments of assessment used), and the analysis techniques employed.
The description of the main results should be prioritized in the writing of the Abstract. Include the main quantitative results with their confidence intervals, but be selective and present only the essential results directly connected to the main goal of the study.
In the conclusion, avoid clichés such as “more investigations on the theme are required”, “the results should be taken with caution” or “The results from this study may be useful for the design of strategies of prevention”. At the end of the Abstract, describe in one sentence your conclusion on how the results helped responding to the goals of the study. Try to indicate the contribution of the results of this study for the knowledge about the theme investigated.
Introduction
In the Introduction of the article, the author should state, in a clear, concise way, the current status of the theme under study, and what gaps still exist that justify this investigation to be carried out. In short, describe what is known about the subject and why this investigation is warranted. It is in the introduction that the question of the investigation should be clearly formulated. It is based on this question that the theoretical model is also explained.
To substantiate the assertions made, it is necessary to select the references to be quoted from. These references should be original or review articles that investigated the problem directly. Avoid substantiating your statements on articles that did not investigate the problem directly, but rather refer to studies that have examined the theme on an empirical basis. In this case, the original article that investigated the problem directly should be mentioned. The article will not be better or more thorough with the inclusion of a large number of references. The number of references should be enough for the reader to conclude that the theoretical bases that justify the investigation are solid.
If it is necessary to present data on the problem under study, select the freshest ones, preferably obtained from official sources. Avoid using data from local studies, particularly if the intention is to present information about the magnitude of the problem. Relative indicators (such as prevalence or incidence rates) should be preferred over absolute data.
It is not the size of the Introduction that ensures its suitability. In fact, if the Information section is too long, it probably includes less relevant information for the understanding of the current knowledge about the theme. An Introduction should not review all aspects related to the theme under study, but only the specific aspects that prompted that investigation. Similarly, there is no need to present all gaps of knowledge about the theme, but only those you intend to address in your investigation.
At the end of the Introduction section, present, in a concise, straightforward way, the goals of the investigation. Whenever possible, use verbs in the infinitive, for instance, “to describe the prevalence”, “to evaluate the association”, “to determine the impact”.
Methods
The methods section should describe what has been planned and what has been accomplished, with sufficient details to allow the readers to understand the essential aspects of the study, so they can judge is the methods were suitable to provide valid, reliable answers, and assess if eventual deviation from the original plan might have affected the validity of the study.
Begin this section by presenting, in details, the main aspects and characteristics of the study design. For instance, if it is a cohort study, indicate how the cohort was conceived and recruited, the characteristics of the group of people that form this cohort, time of follow-up and conditions of exposure. If the investigator is to perform a case-control study, he or she should inform the source from where cases and controls were selected, as well as the definitions that characterize subjects as cases or controls. In a cross-sectional study, indicate the population from where the sample was taken and the moment the survey was performed. Avoid characterizing the design of the study by using the terms “prospective” or “retrospective” alone, as these are not enough to provide an accurate definition of the study design used.
At the beginning of this section, indicate if the current investigation is derived from a broader study. In this case, briefly describe the characteristics of the study, and, if that is the case, refer to a previous publication where further information about the study can be found.
Describe the background, relevant places and dates, including period of recruitment, exposure, follow-up and data collection. These are important data for the reader to assess aspects related to the extrapolation of the results of the investigation. It is suggested that all relevant dates are informed, and not only the time of follow-up. For instance, there may be different dates to determine exposure, the occurrence of outcome, beginning and end of the recruitment period, beginning and end of follow-up.
Describe in details the aspects related to the participants of the study. In cohort studies, inform the eligibility criteria, sources and selection methods of the participants. Also specify the procedures used for follow-up, whether or not they were the same for all participants and complete assessment of the variables. If it is a matched-pair cohort study, inform matching criteria, and the number of exposed and non-exposed subjects. In case-control studies, inform the eligibility criteria, the sources, the criteria for identification, selection and definition of cases and controls. State the reasons for the selection of these types of cases and controls. If it is a matched-pair case-control study, inform matching criteria and the number of controls for each case. In cross-sectional studies, indicate the eligibility criteria, sources and subject selection methods.
Define clearly and objectively all variables being evaluated in the study: outcomes, exposures, potential confounders and effect modifiers. Make clear the relation between the theoretical model and the definition of variables. Whenever necessary, inform the diagnostic criteria. For each variable, indicate the source of data and the methods of assessment (measurements) used. If there are more than one group for comparison, describe if the methods of assessment were used equally in both.
Specify all measures adopted to prevent potential sources of bias. At this point, it should be informed if the authors have implemented any type of quality control in data collection, and if they have assessed the variability of measurements made by different interviewers/examiners.
Explain in details how the size of the sample was determined. If the investigation described in the paper uses data from a broader study designed to investigate other questions, it is necessary to assess the adequacy of the sample in order to verify its effectiveness to investigate the issue under examination by, for instance, calculating its statistical power.
Explain how the quantitative variables were handled in the analysis. Indicate if any type of transformation (for instance, logarithmic) was used, and why. Whenever applicable, describe the criteria and the motives for categorizing them.
Describe all statistical methods employed, including those used for the control of confounders. Minutely describe the strategies used in the selection process of variables for multivariate analysis. Describe the methods used for the analysis of sub-groups and interactions. If interactions were assessed, was assessment made in the adding or multiplicative scale? Why? Explain how the missing data were dealt with. In cohort studies, indicate if there were losses to follow-up, their magnitude and how the problem was handled. Was any type of data imputation performed? In matched-pair case-control studies, inform how matching was considered in the analyses. In cross-sectional studies, if indicated, describe how the sampling strategy was considered in the analyses. Describe if any type of sensitivity analysis was performed, and the procedures used.
Results
The Results section should be a factual report of what was found, and it should be free of interpretation or ideas that reflect the opinion and points of view of the authors. This section should present the aspects related to the recruitment of the subjects, a description of the population under study, and the main results of the analyses performed.
Start by describing the number of participants in each stage of the study (for instance, the number of potentially eligible participants included in the study, those who went through follow-up, and those actually evaluated). Next, describe the reasons for loss at each stage. Present the information separately for the different groups of comparison. Consider if it is appropriate to present a chart that shows the flow of subjects in the different stages of the study.
Describe the socio-demographic and medical characteristics of the subjects, and provide information about exposures and potential confounding variables. In these descriptive tables it is not necessary to present results of statistical tests or p-values.
Indicate the number of subjects with missing data for each variable of interest. If necessary, use a table to present these data.
In cohort studies, indicate the total and mean (or median) time of follow-up. In addition, indicate also the minimum and maximum period of time, or distribution percentiles. The total person-years of follow up should be specified. This information should be presented separately, for the different exposure categories.
In terms of outcome, present the number of events observed as well as measures of frequency, with their respective confidence interval (for instance, incidence rates or cumulative incidence in cohort studies, or prevalence in cross-sectional studies). In case-control studies, present the distribution of cases and controls in each category of exposure (in absolute numbers and percentages).