title: [Publications: good or bad? Critical appraisal of scientific publications].
abstract: Doctors interested in medical research are flooded by publications in numerous scientific journals. Scientific manuscripts manifest, however, a wide range in terms of quality and conclusiveness, irrespective of their scientific context and the reader ought to be able to assess the value of the presented data and information. We have thus compiled a checklist in an attempt to provide the doctor with a relatively simple means of distinguishing between "good" and "bad" publications, even if he/she is not concerned with scientific methodology issues on a routine basis. Some aspects of "publication bias" are also touched upon in order to point out certain problems from the opposite perspective, namely that of the physician concerned with active scientific work.
authors.affiliation: Medizinische Abteilung Merck Sharp & Dohme Ges.m.b.H, Wien, Osterreich.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Mádai
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Höltl
mesh_terms: D002985:Clinical Protocols / Q000592:standards; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D010820:Physicians; D011642:Publications; D011786:Quality Control; D012106:Research / Q000592:standards
vernacular_title: Publikationen: Gut oder Schlecht? Kritische Betrachtung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen.