Thursday, September 30, 2010

"compared with" vs "compared to"

Because the outcome difference between treatment arms is what's being discussed, I've used "compared with," but the client keeps changing it back to "compare to." What authority should I use to demonstrate that "with" really is preferred?
See page 390 in in the 10th edition AMA manual (or 249 in the 9th):
One thing or person is usually compared with another when the aim is to examine similarities or differences in detail. An entity is compared to another when a single striking similarity (or dissimilarity) is observed, or when a thing of one class is likened to one of another class, without analysis (ie, one entity is comparable to another).
Thus AMA confirms what we already know; the more important question is whether AMA is considered authoritative. Does it carry weight?

Some years ago I was confronted by a relatively new but senior member of a company's client service team—a physician with considerable clinical experience and pile of publications:

"Look," he said a little too brusquely, "why do you keep doing this to P values? Nobody knows what this is—I don't think I've ever seen them formatted this way."

I answered that the account used AMA style, then tried to give AMA's rationale for probability value formatting but never got a chance to finish.

"AMA?" he interrupted. "That's JAMA, right?"

I nodded.

"I haven't published anything in JAMA in a decade, at least. JAMA? Who publishes in JAMA anymore?"

If AMA's take on compared with fails to inspire sufficient confidence, you can also cite the ACS Style Guide (page 48) or the 15th edition of Chicago (page 206 and, yes, I know I need to upgrade) or the AP Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (page 54).

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Citation format: supplemental appendix

How do I reference the supplemental appendix given only as a link in the body of the online version of the article I'm working with? Can I just reference the article?
That's a very good question from a Med Ed writer. For clarity, let's back up and make sure we're all on the same page.

The article in question (which I'll keep private) is a standard original article published in a major peer-reviewed journal. The online version of the article is the version actually seen and used by the Med Ed writer. For the purposes of illustration, I've created an imaginary original article citation (mirroring the real article I was asked about) formatted in proper AMA (see 3.15.1 in 10th edition manual):
Smith JJ, Garcia R, Crossman W, et al. Safety and efficacy of XYZ123, inhibitor of JAK in human cancer cells. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(27):115-123. http://jcoascopubs.org/content/28/27/smith. Published September 16, 2010. Accessed September 20, 2010.
It's a fake citation, but let's pretend that this Smith citation refers to the real article I'm being asked about. I've applied proper AMA format for an online article with a publication date and page numbers corresponding to those used in the print version. Pretty standard.

The challenge here is that the Med Ed writer intends to use data not present in the Smith article itself but given in a "Supplemental Appendix" only available by hyperlink in the online version. Readers click the words "Supplemental Appendix" and a PDF automatically loads in the browser, providing data, graphs, charts, and explanation not available in the print version. I checked the print version and confirmed that an editor's note does refer readers to the same "Supplemental Appendix" available online.

That should bring us all up to speed. Finally, the question: What's the proper AMA citation for data taken from that "Supplemental Appendix" PDF?

My initial reaction was to recommend 3.11.8 Supplements, on page 49 of the 10th edition manual, which would format our Smith as follows:
Smith JJ, Garcia R, Crossman W, et al. Safety and efficacy of XYZ123, inhibitor of JAK in human cancer cells. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(27)(suppl):115-123. http://jcoascopubs.org/content/28/27/smith. Published September 16, 2010. Accessed September 20, 2010.
But that's incorrect. The "Supplemental Appendix" PDF hyperlinked in our Smith article is not, after all, a supplement issue of the journal. Instead, it's supplemental matter available with the online version of the standard publication.

The correct format is given in example 12, 3.15.1 Online Journals, on page 66. The paragraph above example 12 explains that
in the example below, the online article includes a video. This is mentioned in an editor's note in the print journal; in the online journal, a link to the video appears in the table of contents and as a link within the article.
The video in that example is supplemental matter available with the online version of the standard publication—just like the PDF available with the online version of our Smith article.

Thus, the answer is to use the format modeled in example 12 of section 3.15.1, reproduced below. Note the bracketed insert, the new URL (corresponding to the URL of the PDF), and the (optional) removal of the published date:
Smith JJ, Garcia R, Crossman W, et al. Safety and efficacy of XYZ123, inhibitor of JAK in human cancer cells [supplemental appendix]. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(27):115-123. http://jcoascopubs.org/content/28/27/smith/suppappx.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2010.