Treatment Evaluation
A guide for authors submitting to the Expert Collection
Scope
Treatment Evaluations review the clinical data on one drug for one approved indication. They should include content on efficacy and how the drug compares to other approved products for the indication under discussion. The purpose of the Treatment Evaluation is to promote best practice in use of the drug and should, therefore, be limited to approved indications and avoid off-label discussion. In providing a meaningful comparison of drugs approved for the indication this article should help guide physicians in treatment choices and instigate valuable debate.
Word limit
The word limit for Treatment Evaluations is 2,000 words (not including figures, tables or references).
Explore the Expert Collection
Discover all Expert Collection, journal specific guidelines.
Every article must contain
All article types should have a concise, informative title that contains no brand names. Titles should be impartial and non-promotional.
Including address, academic qualifications and job titles of all authors, as well as telephone number and email address of the author for correspondence on a separate cover sheet as the peer reviewers will be blinded to the authors’ identity.
Please note that only the address of the first author of the article will appear on Medline/PubMed, not necessarily the corresponding author.
Please note that only the address of the first author of the article will appear on Medline/PubMed, not necessarily the corresponding author.
The abstract should be maximum 200 words. 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 structure is followed for full-length review 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: Authors are required to summarize briefly their Expert Opinion section.
References must not be included in the abstract.
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: Authors are required to summarize briefly their Expert Opinion section.
References must not be included in the abstract.
A brief list of keywords, in alphabetical order, is required to assist indexers in cross-referencing. The keywords will encompass the therapeutic area, mechanism(s) of action, key compounds and so on.
Introduction: Incorporating a basic introduction to the drug (including information on its mechanism of action) and the approved indication.
Approved use: How is the drug currently used? Details of the clinical efficacy and safety for the indication under discussion.
Competitive environment: How does the drug compare to other drugs approved for the indication under discussion? Please note that the Editorial Office can provide details of the other approved drugs if required.
Approved use: How is the drug currently used? Details of the clinical efficacy and safety for the indication under discussion.
Competitive environment: How does the drug compare to other drugs approved for the indication under discussion? Please note that the Editorial Office can provide details of the other approved drugs if required.
To distinguish the articles published in the Expert Opinion series, authors must provide an additional section entitled ‘Expert Opinion’. This section affords authors the opportunity to provide their interpretation of the data presented in the article. Authors should answer the following (debate is welcome):
1. What, if any, improvement does the drug hold over other therapies or vice versa?
2. What, if any, impact is this drug likely to have on current treatment strategies?
3. How likely are physicians to prescribe the drug? Why do you prescribe this drug (if applicable)?
Please note that ‘opinions’ are encouraged in the Expert Opinion section, and, as such, referees are asked to keep this in mind when peer reviewing the manuscript.
1. What, if any, improvement does the drug hold over other therapies or vice versa?
2. What, if any, impact is this drug likely to have on current treatment strategies?
3. How likely are physicians to prescribe the drug? Why do you prescribe this drug (if applicable)?
Please note that ‘opinions’ are encouraged in the Expert Opinion section, and, as such, referees are asked to keep this in mind when peer reviewing the manuscript.
Please provide, in the form of a bulleted list (five or six points), statements covering the key aspects of the paper. However, authors are requested to focus their discussion on approved uses of the drug.
A maximum of 100 references is suggested. Ensure that all key work relevant to the topic under discussion is cited in the text and listed in the bibliography. Reference to unpublished data should be kept to a minimum and authors must obtain a signed letter of permission from cited persons to use unpublished results or personal communications in the manuscript.
Important references should be highlighted with a one/two star system and brief annotations should be given (see the journal’s Instructions for Authors page for examples and for a more detailed description of our referencing style).
Up to five figures and five tables are permitted. For further information on tables and figures, please see our formatting guide.