جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « راهنما » در نشریات گروه « پزشکی »

Rapid Assessment and Response (RAR) is an approach that has been used in health research since the 1990s, and several guidelines have been designed for it. This study examines and compares different guidelines in this field.

This review study was conducted on the 6 guidelines published in PubMed and Scopus databases. After the initial review, the main dimensions of these guidelines, including the definition and target group, methods used, steps to conduct the research, and time planning were extracted in the form of a comparative table.

In six guidelines, the RAR approach has been defined in relation to the comprehensive and rapid investigation of a health-related problem. There are differences in terms of the number of 'steps' of rapid assessment and response, as well as in 'time planning'; a period of 12 to 16 weeks is considered. Among the methods used in the reviewed guides, the following can be mentioned: reviewing available information, conducting interviews (open, structured, and semi-structured), focused group discussions, and other methods such as observation, surveys, narrative methods, and mapping.

The rapid assessment and response (RAR) can be used as an approach, with high flexibility and consideration of scientific and practical aspects, to assess health problems and high-risk behaviors in hard-to-reach groups.

The main purpose of guidelines is to improve patient care, and if properly developed, will lead to improving the quality and quantity of health services. Most clinical guidelines don`t meet the necessary standards, so this study was commissioned by the relevant ministry with the aim of preparing an application package for designing medical guidelines.

This development research plan was conducted in 2020 in four stages; Searching and collecting scientific resources, collecting experts opinions in the field of guideline standards by qualitative method, analyzing texts and classifying information, final design package compilation. The content validity of the proposal forms and their instructions were obtained by calculating the CVI and CVR.

In this study, 13 knowledge products including design request process flowchart, checklist for necessity and type of guideline, pre-proposal, proposal of developing, updating and adapting of clinical practice guidelines and instructions for completing them, conflict of interest form, Guideline design progress report submission forms were prepared. The initial proposal form was also designed in 13 sections using scientific sources. The necessity CVR = (99%), clarity and applicability of the prepared forms and instructions were confirmed. The overall CVI index was 0.97.

The prepared package, is simple, practical, contains the necessary standards for developing/ updating/ adapting the guidelines, as well as in accordance with the requirements and structure of health status in the country. Therefore, it is suggested that a strategy be designed to institutionalize the process and informative products provided by the education system and the executive department of services.

Asthma is uncontrolled in more than half of asthma patients due to inadequate and incorrect management. The main reasons for inadequate management are non-adherence, inadequate knowledge of a general practitioner about patientchr('39')s clinical condition, and not following asthma management guidelines The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual model for the asthma management system in primary care

In this study, according to the guideline of the Global Initiative for Asthma, workflows for the management of asthma were extracted. Then, the conceptual model of the system was developed with unified modeling language and evaluated by an expert panel, including five asthma and allergy specialists, three informatics specialists and two health information management experts who were selected through non-probability sampling method. Data collection tools were the discussion framework with open-ended questions that reached a collective agreement after discussion on the conceptual model. The collective agreements were applied simultaneously to the diagrams of the conceptual model.

The conceptual model was developed and evaluated in 10 diagrams, including business use-case, use-case, activities, sequences and class diagrams. The diagrams were reported after evaluation. The business use-case shows the main use-case, and the use-case diagrams show the more detailed use-case which is used for the system. The activity diagram shows how the patient was admitted, visited, and managed. The sequence diagram and the class diagram also present the order of asthma management operation, the objects required by the asthma management, and how they are related, respectively.

Given the validity of the conceptual model by asthma and allergy specialists together with informatics and health information management, it can be expected that the current conceptual model will significantly help to design and implement efficient systems that meet the needs of users.

Nowadays, the issue of Authorship has increasingly expanded in the academic world and has resulted in a lot of problems for scholars and the editorial board of scientific Journals. Given the increasing number of postgraduate students and subsequent research activities, every day we witness the formal and informal arguments on the ambiguity and unfairness of decisions regarding authors' names and the dissatisfaction of students and professors in this regard. These discontents make it clearer that there is an urgent need for the policies that address the road map for researchers. Knowing about these policies and their practical application can play an effective role in preventing potential misuse and managing common disputes over authorship.
Authorship is a proper method of assigning responsibility and giving credit for doing intellectual work to individuals. The credit is given to an individual to collaborate on research and its importance in fostering reputation and support for academic promotion for the author and increasing the strength and credibility of the affiliated organizations.
Individuals violate ethical principles in authorship in a variety of ways; sometimes by placing names of people who did not have a role in doing research or played a very small role, and sometimes by removing the names of people who have been involved in a part of the research. Preventing such events is always better than confronting it after the occurrence.
Many academic institutions and organizations, such as universities and research institutes, have developed standards for authorship, although they are similar in basic principles, may vary somewhat over time and from one discipline to another. Various motivations may reinforce the temptation to violate these standards and fundamental principles in individuals. For example, young researchers may believe that putting senior faculty names in the list of authors can increase the credibility of the paper and the chance of accepting it for publication, or not placing the names of people who own power, would endanger their job position. Sometimes, investment in expanding job and research opportunities and receiving financial support may encourage researchers to add people's names, conflicting with the authorship standards.
The responsibility for deciding to give authorship credit when publishing the results of research activities in journals is to those who have conducted the research. Sometimes there may be disagreements about the authors of the product of an intellectual effect, which usually interfere with the work. Researchers need to be aware of and apply the principles of authorship, which usually referred to in the section of author’s guideline in each journal. As well, the documentation of ethical codes in publications should always be considered an acceptable source.
One of the important points to prevent possible disagreements is that the authorship criteria are agreed upon by all members of the research team in the first phase of the research. Whenever possible, it is recommended that written records of authorship decisions be maintained by the team leader and, if necessary, revised by the team members according to the role and participation of individuals during the research.
Harvard Medical Schoo considers the basic principles of authorship as:

Having a significant and direct contribution to the work from conceptual development to design, analysis, and/ interpretation of data.
Motivating and guiding intellectually for the basic idea and supporting the continuity of work. (It should be noted that financial support does not include the criteria for authorship).
In research conducted by specialized teams, individual engagement and responsibility may be limited to certain aspects of work, but everyone should be involved in writing the article and finalizing its final version. 
The corresponding author, even if does not have a deep understanding of any specialized part of the work, must have a complete understanding of the overall work.
The corresponding author should ensure that all authors have the basic standards of authorship, and she/he should have a written brief description of their participation in the research process to provide the editor.


The order of authors may be determined in different ways in different countries, organizations, and research groups. One of the common ways to determine the order of the authors is based on each author’s contribution, and who has been the leader of the research and writing of the article. In some cases, the most experienced person is considered the last author and correspondence, and sometimes the names may be mentioned in alphabetical order. Usually, selection based on the roles and responsibilities of people in the research, and then in writing the article, is more common than other methods. In this way, it is expected that the first author will have the greatest role in doing the work.
Sometimes the names of people are on the list of authors who have not played any role in the work. These people may be in the role of head of the department or influential people. On the other hand, you may add your friends’ names to your list, hoping that he will do the same for you. These people are called "honorary authors," and adding their names is conflicting with the principles of publication ethics.
The International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE) in 2018 made recommendations for conducting, reporting, editing, and disseminating scientific works in medical journals, according to which authorship has four essential requirements:

Having a significant contribution to designing, collecting, analyzing or interpreting data
Preparing the draft of a paper or accurately reviewing and criticizing its intellectual content
Reviewing and approving the final version of the article before its publication
Agreeing to address all aspects of work and ensuring that questions about the accuracy or integrity of each part of work are appropriately considered and resolved.


Each person on the list of authors, in addition to taking responsibility for the parts of the work that has personally done, must be able to recognize the roles of other authors. Also, those who have contributed to the performance of the project, or compilation of the article, but their participation was not so much that they can be on the authors’ list, should be appreciated in the acknowledgment section.
The above items are a general guide, and different disciplines or journals may apply different standards in their field. For example, some journals emphasize that all those designated as authors must meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship. The corresponding author is responsible for identifying the individuals who meet these criteria. Other responsibilities of the corresponding author include communicating with the journal when submitting a manuscript, determining the contribution of individuals to the research work, and ensuring the fulfillment of all the administrative requirements of the journal, such as providing correct details of authors, ethics committee approvals, trial registration records and the form of conflict of interest. The corresponding author also receives comments from the reviewers and the final version of the paper for approval by the authors. However, these tasks may be assigned to one or more colleagues by prior agreement.
The corresponding author must be identified before the start of the work, and when a large team with several authors have conducted a research, the team should ideally decide who is going to be in the author's list. All members of the team that are supposed to be in the list of authors need to meet all four criteria for authorship, including the review and approval of the final version of the paper, and be able to assume overall responsibility of the work and responsibility for the accuracy of the work of other authors in the team. However, when there are disagreements among authors, it is imperative to follow the instructions of the Publication Ethics Committee or the recommendations of the editors of medical journals and other guidelines in this area. But first and foremost, developing and strengthening of an ethical culture in the field of publications is a key issue that professors are expected to take into account and act as a role model in their academic role with both their students and colleagues. Speaking about this issue from the beginning of the work and making a decision about it before writing an article, can be very effective in preventing future disagreements.

A large number of people are affected by wars and nuclear-radiological crises. These crises due to human and transport resources and absence of a single clinical guide triage and prioritize victims can resulting in many causulties. For this purpose, local clinical guides could help reduce mortality.
This study aimed at developing triage clinical guidelines in nuclear_ radiological events that are all things considered.
Material and This study had a qualitative and combined two-step design. The first step was an overview study and a systematic review done on articles, books, organizational documents, and pre-hospital triage guidelines in nuclear-radiological events. In the second step of this study, the Delphi method was used to deal the agreement among experts. This means the full resources of the international clinical guidelines in nuclear-radiological events using library studies and internet search in databases (Pub Med, Google Scholar, Science Direct) between years 2000 and 2017 were selected; related resources were extracted and quality survey based on the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) scoring system was done and the initial guideline was drafted. The Delphi method, in order to summarize information in two rounds, was used with 6 professors and experts. Finally, data was summarized and final guidelines were developed.
After selecting resources using the AGREE II instrument, the initial draft guidelines were written by the research team and were in hands of professionals for validation in the form of the Delphi method in two stages. After 6 weeks of the first stage, comments were collected and content integrated and changes were made. Subsequently, the draft was sent for the second round of Delphi. After collecting the opinions, consensus was reached on the comments and findings of published pre-hospital triage guidelines in nuclear-radiological events.
Discussion and A more organized management of injuries and their prioritization in order to provide the best treatment at the right time was done with regards to nuclear- radiological contamination.

Judicious use of antibiotics is essential considering the growth of antimi-crobial resistance and escalating costs in health care. Ceftriaxone is a third-generation cephalosporin used widely for the treatment of various infections in outpatient and in-patient. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ceftriaxone utilization before and after implementation of guidelines and physicians education. A descriptive cross-sectional، before-after intervention study was performed in 6 wards of a teaching hospital in Tehran، Iran. The study was conducted in three phases: pre-guideline، educational interventions and post guideline implementation. The pre intervention phase included chart analysis of current ceftriaxone use in 200 consecutive patients from the representative wards included in the study. The educational interventions included preparation and distribution of ceftriaxone guidelines as pamphlets among physicians working in the studied wards. Also the clinical pharmacist returned to each ward and trained physicians regarding the correct use of ceftriaxone. In the post intervention phase immediately after the instruction، and in the follow up phase، one month later، a prospective analysis of ceftriaxone utilization was performed by chart review of 200 patients to detect changes in ceftriaxone utilization pattern. Four hundred cases were evaluated during study (200 before and 200 after physician’s education). The correct indication of ceftriaxone was 93% and 96% before and after the educational interventions respectively. Analysis showed that correct indi-cation of ceftriaxone did not change significantly before and after education (P= 0. 188). Regarding to proper administration (dose، interval and duration) ceftriaxone utilization significantly changed after education (P< 0. 001). Adoption of the guidelines with associated training resulted in significant improvement in ceftriaxone administration pattern in the hospitals.