There are two easy methods for associating a citation with a block of text. The general method creates a link with any web page. The alternative method, shown below, works with the special PubMed identifier.
Note: it is helpful to have two browser windows open simultaneously--one for the Orthopaedia page you are editing, another for the source you are citing.
General Method
For example: Let's say you wanted to link to a citation supporting the assertion that CT scans don't help with the classification of proximal humeral fractures. In the Orthopaedia page editor, you have typed in the text:
"Bernstein et. al. showed in 1996 that CT scans don't help with the classification of proximal humeral fractures."
Next, go to PubMed
or Google Scholar (or, at your peril , anywhere else on the web) to find a reference.
Follow the PubMed (or Google Scholar) links to the article you wish to cite. In this case, let's say you find the article is "Evaluation of the Neer Classification for Proximal Humeral Fractures with CT Scans and Plain Radiographs" from the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery whose url on PubMed is "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8816653&dopt=Abstract". (This address is of course displayed in the address line of the browser displaying the PubMed page.)
Highlight that address line with your mouse and copy it (using Control + C).
(If you don't know what the address line of your browser is, take note that the address of this particular page is orthopaedia.info/display/Main/Citations+Methods. Look for that text on the top line of your browser now)
Next:
- Select the text you want to link from. (in this case it is the three words "Bernstein et. al".) Hold left mouse button and select the text.
- Click on the "Insert/Edit Link" icon in the editor. If you are using the RICH TEXT editor, it is the blue icon 4 to the left of the smiley face. A pop up window will appear.
- Click on external link tab in that popup window, second from the right, and paste the URL you copied above, ie, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8816653&dopt=Abstract into the "Enter hyperlink" box. Make sure you remove the http:// that is already present.
- Save the Orthopaedia page.
The result will be as follows:
Bernstein et. al. showed in 1996 that CT scans don't help with the classification of proximal humeral fractures.
Alternative Method (Only for PubMed)
Copy the PMID (PubMed identifier) at the bottom of the PubMed abstract.
At the bottom of your article enter the following:
{cite:list=XXZZY}
(XXZZY is the PMID number).
for instance, {cite:list=8816653} will produce this:
Bernstein J, Adler LM, Blank JE, Dalsey RM, Williams GR, Iannotti JP, 1996. "Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs."
J Bone Joint Surg Am 78 (9): 1371-5
[PubMed]
Abstract:
The intraobserver reliability and inter-observer reproducibility of the Neer classification system were assessed on the basis of the plain radiographs and computerized tomographic scans of twenty fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. To determine if the observers had difficulty agreeing only about the degree of displacement or angulation (but could determine which segments were fractured), a modified system (in which fracture lines were considered but displacement was not) also was assessed. Finally, the observers were asked to recommend a treatment for the fracture, and the reliability and re-producibility of that decision were measured. The radiographs and computerized tomographic scans were viewed on two occasions by four observers, including two residents in their fifth year of postgraduate study and two fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons. Kappa coefficients then were calculated. The mean kappa coefficient for intraobserver reliability was 0.64 when the fractures were assessed with radiographs alone, 0.72 when they were assessed with radiographs and computerized tomographic scans, 0.68 when they were classified according to the modified system in which displacement and angulation were not considered, and 0.84 for treatment recommendations; the mean kappa coefficients for interobserver reproducibility were 0.52, 0.50, 0.56, and 0.65, respectively. The interobserver reproducibility of the responses of the attending surgeons regarding diagnosis and treatment did not change when the fractures were classified with use of computerized tomographic scans in addition to radiographs or with use of the modified system in which displacement and angulation were not considered; the mean kappa coefficient was 0.64 for all such comparisons. Over-all, the addition of computerized tomographic scans was associated with a slight increase in intraobserver reliability but no increase in interobserver reproducibility. The classification of fractures of the shoulder remains difficult because even experts cannot uniformly agree about which fragments are fractured. Because of this underlying difficulty, optimum patient care might require the development of new imaging modalities and not necessarily new classification systems.
note that if you click on the word
PubMed above the abstract will appear temporarily--a neat feature.
If you have more than one reference then separate the PMIDs by a comma: {cite:list=xxzzy,xxyyzz}
This, then, can generate a bibliography. For instance, the text
"Bibliography
{cite:list=8816653,11097441}"
produces this:
Bibliography
Bernstein J, Adler LM, Blank JE, Dalsey RM, Williams GR, Iannotti JP, 1996. "Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs."
J Bone Joint Surg Am 78 (9): 1371-5
[PubMed]
Abstract:
The intraobserver reliability and inter-observer reproducibility of the Neer classification system were assessed on the basis of the plain radiographs and computerized tomographic scans of twenty fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. To determine if the observers had difficulty agreeing only about the degree of displacement or angulation (but could determine which segments were fractured), a modified system (in which fracture lines were considered but displacement was not) also was assessed. Finally, the observers were asked to recommend a treatment for the fracture, and the reliability and re-producibility of that decision were measured. The radiographs and computerized tomographic scans were viewed on two occasions by four observers, including two residents in their fifth year of postgraduate study and two fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons. Kappa coefficients then were calculated. The mean kappa coefficient for intraobserver reliability was 0.64 when the fractures were assessed with radiographs alone, 0.72 when they were assessed with radiographs and computerized tomographic scans, 0.68 when they were classified according to the modified system in which displacement and angulation were not considered, and 0.84 for treatment recommendations; the mean kappa coefficients for interobserver reproducibility were 0.52, 0.50, 0.56, and 0.65, respectively. The interobserver reproducibility of the responses of the attending surgeons regarding diagnosis and treatment did not change when the fractures were classified with use of computerized tomographic scans in addition to radiographs or with use of the modified system in which displacement and angulation were not considered; the mean kappa coefficient was 0.64 for all such comparisons. Over-all, the addition of computerized tomographic scans was associated with a slight increase in intraobserver reliability but no increase in interobserver reproducibility. The classification of fractures of the shoulder remains difficult because even experts cannot uniformly agree about which fragments are fractured. Because of this underlying difficulty, optimum patient care might require the development of new imaging modalities and not necessarily new classification systems.
Beredjiklian PK, Bozentka DJ, Steinberg DR, Bernstein J, 2000. "Evaluating the source and content of orthopaedic information on the Internet. The case of carpal tunnel syndrome."
J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A (11): 1540-3
[PubMed]
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The Internet has become a popular source of medical information for patients. Authors of health-related web pages are not required to adhere to any standard for medical content or accuracy. The goal of the present study was to assess the type, quality, and reliability of information about carpal tunnel syndrome that is available on the Internet. METHODS: The search phrase "carpal tunnel syndrome" was entered into five commonly used World Wide Web search engines. The search results then were given as an ordered list of universal resource locators, or web-site addresses. The top (first) fifty web sites from each of the five searches were combined to create a master roster of 250 web-site addresses. These web sites then were evaluated for authorship and content, and an informational value score ranging from 0 to 100 points was assigned to each. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of the sites sold commercial products for the evaluation or treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. An additional 30 percent were commercial web sites that did not sell products. Only 23 percent of the sites were authored by a physician or an academic organization. Fewer than half of the sites offered conventional information. Twenty-three percent of the sites offered unconventional or misleading information. The mean informational value of the web sites was 28.4 of a possible 100 points. CONCLUSIONS: The information about carpal tunnel syndrome on the Internet is of limited quality and poor informational value. The public and the medical communities need to be aware of these limitations so that the quality of medical information available on the World Wide Web can be improved.
rate-1212654-34984
| Article Rating? |
|
|
The following individuals have contributed to this page:
