Clinical trial report
A guide for authors submitting to the Expert Collection
Word limit
The word limit for Clinical Trial Reports is 3,000-7,000 words (not including tables, figures and references).
Aim
The aim of a Clinical Trial Report is to provide a concise review of the rationale, design and results of a specific clinical trial (or clinical trial program). Authors are encouraged to provide a critical appraisal of the most important and up-to-date information and provide their own viewpoint on the implications of the study on clinical practice.
Timing
Several factors contribute to the selection of drugs to be reviewed, including scientific need, emergence of new important clinical data, market launches, approval of new indications, and the requirement for an alternative appraisal of the literature. Timing is critical and it is important that the deadlines set by the Commissioning Editor are met. However, if you feel there is a need to delay publication, for instance to discuss new data presented at a scientific meeting or to coincide with the publication of primary literature, the Profiles Editor will be happy to accommodate such requests.
Explore the Expert Collection
Discover all Expert Collection, journal specific guidelines.
Every article must contain
Please note that only the address of the first author of the article will appear on Medline/PubMed, not necessarily the corresponding author.
The role of the summary is to draw in the interested casual browser. This should not be an abstract but should outline the article scope and briefly put it into context. No references should be cited in the summary.
– Design
– Data analysis
– Results
– Safety and tolerability
Conclusion: An analysis of the data presented in the review.
In addition there is the opportunity to discuss the developments that are likely to be important in the future and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results.
Five-year view: Authors are challenged to include a speculative viewpoint on how the field will have evolved 5 years from the point at which the review was written.