R&R in the FASTLANE 030

The 30th edition of our series of eminence-based eminence is here… However, this one was compiled differently to the others — I challenged over 5,000 Twitter followers to tweet me the best or most useful EM/CC journal article they had read in the past year. Then I went away and read them, and these were the ones worthy of a place in the R&R pantheon (a number of other suggestions had already been included in previous R&Rs — every man and his dog wanted to vote for the Levitan and Weingart preoxygenation paper for instance!). Thanks to all who took part! A free resource that harnesses the power of social media to allow some of the best and brightest emergency medicine and critical care clinicians from all over the world tell us what they think is worth reading from the published literature. This edition contains 10 recommended reads. Find out more about the R&R in the FASTLANE project here and check out the team of contributors from all around the world. This edition’s R&R Hall of Famer Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):178-82. Review. PubMed PMID: 16574968; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1420798.   Peer review – two words that confer a blessing on any published article and elevate it to a status worthy of academic merit. Yet it is a deeply flawed process. Former BMJ editor Richard Smith, who has blogged on the subject many times with great wisdom, tells us what is wrong...
Source: Life in the Fast Lane - Category: Emergency Medicine Doctors Authors: Tags: Emergency Medicine Evidence Based Medicine Featured Intensive Care R&R in the FASTLANE critical care literature recommendations research and reviews Source Type: blogs