Diagnostic Profile guidelines
A guide for authors submitting to the Expert Collection
Expert Review articles have been engineered specifically for the online environment. The structure is designed to draw the time-constrained reader directly to the information they require.
Three features in particular contribute to the unique value of Expert Review articles:
The aim of a Diagnostic Profile is to provide a concise review of the design, basic technology, clinical use, and future potential of a specific diagnostic system/assay.
Explore the Expert Collection
Discover all Expert Collection, journal specific guidelines.
The primary focus of the article should be on the design, reliability, validity, and clinical uses of the diagnostic of interest. Using the literature available, the authors are encouraged to provide a critical appraisal of the most important and up-to-date information and discuss how the diagnostic is likely to impact the clinical management and treatment of specific diseases. It is recommended that both the national and regional regulatory product guidelines are followed when discussing the uses of the diagnostic.
The audience for the Expert Review series consists of clinicians, research scientists, decision-makers, and a range of professionals in the healthcare community. Authors should bear in mind the multidisciplinary status of the readership when writing the article.
The word limit for Diagnostic Profiles is 3,000-7,000 words (not including tables, figures, and references).
Several factors contribute to the selection of diagnostics to be reviewed, including the scientific need, emergence of new important clinical data, market launches and approval of new indications, and the requirement for an alternative appraisal of the literature. So, 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 Commissioning Editor will be happy to accommodate such requests.
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 aim of the abstract is to draw in the interested reader and provide an accurate reflection of the content of the paper. We therefore request the following abstract structure is followed for full-length Diagnostic Profile articles:
Introduction: Authors are required to describe the significance of the topic under discussion.
Areas covered: Authors are required to describe the research discussed and the literature search undertaken.
Expert Opinion: The author’s expert view on the current status of the field under discussion.
Incorporating basic information on disease incidence and prevalence, unmet medical need and present diagnostic capabilities (highlighting regional variations where appropriate).
Overview of the market:
What are the unmet needs of currently available diagnostics?
Specific populations the diagnostic may be used for (e.g. elderly, pediatric populations etc.)
Introduction to the device:
How the diagnostic works
Cost-effectiveness (training, waste disposal, equipment required…)
Validity and reliability data
Clinical profile and post-marketing findings:
Data from pre-FDA approval studies
Data from post-FDA approval studies (if approved)
Include a table summarizing ongoing and completed clinical trials of the diagnostic
A standalone section, summarizing competing technologies in the field
Include information on the status of the diagnostic, i.e., where it is currently approved, in which countries it is approved and for what indications. Should cover EU, US and rest of the world where appropriate.
A short summary 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.
Authors are also challenged to include a speculative viewpoint on how the field will have evolved 5 years from the point at which the review was written. This section should be between 500-1000 words (included in the overall word count).