Instructions for Authors
Scope and Content
- Original Research
- EM Advances
- ED Administration
- Pediatric EM
- Community EM
- State of the Art
- Brief Educational Reports
- Case Reports
- Knowledge Applied to Practice
- CJEM Journal Club
- Diagnostic Challenge
- Tips from the Trenches
- International EM
- Clinical Practice Guidelines
- Resident Issues
In addition, CJEM publishes letters to the editor and media reviews.
Review and Editorial Processes
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. In this space, please address each of the suggestions and cite where in the manuscript the change has been made. If no change was made, please explain why. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).
Conflict of Interest
A structured Abstract must be included (see above).
The Introduction should succinctly discuss study background, importance and the a priori study question, objectives or hypothesis.
The Methods section should include a description of the overall study design as planned, the study setting, time period, population studied (with eligibility criteria and unit of analysis if different from individual patients), a description of the intervention, the primary and secondary outcome measures, and the statistical analysis employed.For investigations involving human subjects, the nature and timing of the consent that was obtained must be specified. There should be sufficient detail to allow a knowledgeable reader to replicate the study, at least in theory. Authors must explicitly name the ethics committee or investigational review board which approved the research.
The Results section should present primary and secondary results, without undue repetition of data reported in tables and figures. Any substantial deviations from the study as planned usually appear in this section. Measurements and rates should be reported using the appropriate number of significant digits, based on the precision of the measure (e.g. “After providing informed consent, 11 (13%) of 82 subjects withdrew from the study before being administered the intervention.” rather than “(13.4%)”).
The Discussion section should highlight the important study findings and their implications especially in the context of previous work, but without exhaustively summarizing the prior literature. In addition, the Discussion should identify limitations of the research and how any biases may affect the interpretation of the findings.
Conclusions should be stated in one paragraph and must be supported by the study findings. Avoid extending your conclusion beyond what your data show.
Most papers will benefit from at least one and not more than five tables or figures.
State of the Art
Brief Educational Reports
- identify a previously undescribed finding or phenomenon
- describe a therapy that could lead to future research or a change in practice
All cases for consideration should have a “take home” clinical message pertinent to Canadian Emergency Physicians.
Authors should conform to the general guidelines laid out in “Uniform Requirements.”1 Manuscripts submitted to “Case Reports” should include:
Knowledge Applied to Practice
CJEM Journal Club: (600-1200 words excluding tables, figures, and references)
“CJEM Journal Club” is devoted to evidence-based article reviews. The aims of this section are to demonstrate the use of the critical review format, to review articles of interest to emergency physicians, and to determine the relative validity and usefulness of these articles. To assist readers in keeping abreast of the relevant EM literature, timely reviews of important articles/topics will be a factor in the decision to accept. Review articles must address three key questions:
- What are the results?
- Are the results valid?
- Will the results help me care for my patients?
Diagnostic Challenge: (500–1000 words excluding tables, figures, and references)
Authors may submit brief case summaries accompanied by one or two images that will stimulate diagnostic deliberation by the reader and form a foundation for discussion. Diagnosis and explanation should be distinct from the case presentation.
Tips from the Trenches: (1000–1500 words excluding tables, figures, and references)
The purpose of this section is to publish very brief reports of clinical techniques or “pearls.”
Images: (250 words or less excluding references)
This section should include interesting, high-quality clinical images with accompanying text that briefly reviews the important features of the related case.
This is a forum for descriptive articles on emergency medicine experiences in countries other than Canada. Articles should contain elements of human interest or of disease or practice patterns that are unique or unusual and of interest to Canadian emergency physicians. Accompanying visual images are strongly encouraged. .
Clinical Practice Guidelines
(1000 words or less excluding references)
Submissions should reflect the challenges of working in medicine. Generally they should be humorous or provide some human interest and add to our understanding of the physician experience, particularly in Canada.
Letters should be addressed to the Editor, and should be submitted electronically via Manuscript Central’s Scholar One tracking system at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjem. Letters will be considered for publication if they relate to topics of interest to emergency physicians in urban, rural, community, or academic settings, or if they are in response to (and relevant to) a recent CJEM publication. Letters are generally not peer reviewed but may be edited for brevity and clarity. Letters responding to a previously published CJEM article should be submitted within eight weeks of the article’s publication. Authors whose work is discussed will typically be given an opportunity to respond.
Contacting CJEM Editors
Authors are encouraged to submit articles in many areas of research. Common methodological guidelines for reporting different types of studies have been summarized below. Authors should generally follow these reporting guidelines for a given study design, in an effort to improve the overall quality of the medical literature. Please be advised that this list should not be considered comprehensive for all possible study designs.
|STUDY DESIGN||REPORTING GUIDELINE|
Randomized Controlled Trial -
|Randomized Controlled Trial -
|Modified CONSORT Statement13
|Systematic Review||PRISMA Statement8
|Diagnostic Test Performance Study||STARD Statement7
|Systematic Review of Diagnostic Tests||QUADAS Statement14
|Meta-analysis of Observational Studies||MOOSE Statement15
|Economic Evaluations||CHEC Criteria16
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html (accessed December 20, 2011).
- The US National Institutes of Health. ClinicalTrials.gov. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov (accessed July 2012).
- Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, et al. Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead. CMAJ2007;177(1):57-8, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.070753.
- The CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement. Available at: http://www.consort-statement.org/ (accessed December 20, 2011).
- Cummins RO, Chamberlain DA, Abramson NS, et al. Recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of data from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the Utstein Style. Task Force of the American Heart Association, the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the Australian Resuscitation Council. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20(8):861-74.
- Gilbert EH, Lowenstein SR, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: Where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 1996;27(3):305-8.
- Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Chem 2003;49:1-6. Available at: http://www.stard-statement.org/
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al., The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009;3(3):123-30. http://www.prisma-statement.org/
- Hunt DL, McKibbon KA. Locating and appraising systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;126(7):532-8.
- Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Systematic reviews seek to collate all evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to address a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods." Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/
- American College of Physicians. The American College of Physicians Journal Club. Available at: http://annals.org/journal.aspx
- Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276(8):637-9. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/
- Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006;295(10):1152-60. Available at: http://www.consort-statement.org/extensions/designs/non-inferiority-and-...
- Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AWS, et al. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6:9, doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-9.Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/9 (accessed July 2012).
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000;283(15):2008-12, doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
- Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations : consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Tech Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):240-5.