Journal club will be scheduled once a month, every month. Every month, a staff member will be
assigned to proctor journal club, and a resident or residents will be assigned to select and present
journal articles for discussion.

The resident assigned to journal club will consult with the assigned staff radiologist to select an
appropriate article to be presented. After the journal article has been agreed upon, the article is
to be distributed to the other residents as soon as possible, but no later than seven days prior to
the conference. It is expected that all residents will have carefully read the articles prior to the

Goals of journal club:
  • Acquire, disseminate, and apply new medical information
  • Teach and assess critical appraisal skills for reading and writing a scientific paper
  • Promote lifelong learning skills in evidence-based medicine
  • Improve reading habits
  • Provide an interactive and social opportunity for peer-to-peer learning
  • Improve small group participation, presentation and communications skills
  • Emphasis on original research articles, but good review articles also accepted
  • Discussion of statistics and principles of evidence-based medicine
  • Active participation with interactive discussion format

Standardized Checklist of Review Criteria:
What type of study is this article? (consult the definitions in glossary of study design at
  • Randomized or non-randomized clinical trial
  • Interventional case series or case report
  • Cohort study or case-controlled study
  • Cross-sectional study
  • Observational case series or case report
  • Experimental study
  • Meta-analysis of literature
Review the manuscript sections
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sapien platea morbi dolor lacus nunc, nunc ullamcorper. Felis aliquet egestas vitae, nibh ante quis quis dolor sed mauris. Erat lectus sem ut lobortis, adipiscing ligula eleifend, sodales fringilla mattis dui nullam. Ac massa aliquet.
Item Title
  • Title: Is the title accurate, concise, and complete?
  • Introduction: Are the purposes of the study, the research rationale, and the hypothesis described? Is the pertinent literature reviewed and cited accurately?
  • Methods: Is the description of the study methodology accurate, complete and appropriate? Does the method section inadvertently contain results or discussion?
  • Do the methods adequately describe:
    • Setting (multi-center, institutional, referral, academic, or clinical practice)
    • Patients or study population including patient numbers, one or both sides of the body, selection procedures, inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomization, allocation and masking
    • Intervention or observation procedure(s): (treatments and controls)
    • Main outcome measures (primary, secondary, other).
  • Human Subject Participation in Experimental Investigations: Does the manuscript describe the approval from the appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent monitoring agency? Was appropriate informed consent obtained from the patients or subjects?
  • Use of Animals in Biomedical Research: Does the manuscript describe the animal care protocol, name the institution that sponsored the study, and identify relevant IRB approval? Does the research conform to the generally accepted principles of animal maintenance and care?
  • Statistics: Was the statistical analysis valid? When P values are used, is the actual P value (for example P=.032) provided or is an inequality used (for example, P<.05)? In the reporting of the basic summary statistics, are the mean and standard error, as well as the confidence limits, provided to help the reader understand the conclusions of the study? Are the statistical models used (analysis of variance, covariance, multiple regressions) specified?
  • Results: Are the outcomes and measurements provided in an objective sequence? Are the data provided in a clear and concise manner? Do the tables and figures accurately summarize the data or add to the information presented in the text? Does the data report confidence intervals (usually at the 95% interval) and exact P values or other indications of statistical significance?
  • Discussion: Does the discussion accurately describe the results? Does it identify any statistically or clinically significant limitations or qualifications of the study? Do the authors accurately state the conclusions of the study? Are there overgeneralizations or undue speculations in the discussion? Is equal emphasis given to positive and negative findings?