Technical notes published in BJOMS over a 2-year period--should we be doing it differently?
Between January 2007 and December 2008, 44 technical notes or related publications (such as letters) were published in the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (BJOMS). These covered most of the remit of the specialty and ranged from operative surgical techniques to the use of digital photographs to orientate surgical specimens. However, there would seem to be very little feedback on the value of these articles in everyday practice. We reviewed these technical notes and assessed readability, the value and use of illustrations, the possible expense and/or equipment required in their use, and finally the frequency that the techniques could be used. The anonymised publications were read and scored by a minimum of two dentally qualified senior house officers, two doubly qualified specialist registrars, an SAS grade and two consultants in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The six techniques that gained the highest mean average score are briefly discussed. Although we used a relatively small number of assessors who might not be representative of the whole BJOMS readership, this study would suggest that some sort of change in the way that these technical notes are published should be considered. Options might include inviting a commentary from the reviewers who have tried the technique and also encouraging colleagues to report their experiences of these techniques in the 'letters to the editor' section.
Singh
M
M
Maxillofacial Unit, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Shekar
K
K
Shelley
M
M
Mackenzie
N
N
Spencer
H
H
Kiani
H
H
Brennan
P A
PA
D032882:Comprehension; D015709:Correspondence as Topic; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D006801:Humans; D017712:Peer Review, Research; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D011642:Publications; D013515:Surgery, Oral / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*