Abstract

Judith E Adams
Clinical Radiology, Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Although the following sections are outlined as a structure for the article, the sections may not be so specifically headed, but it is useful to have some structure to work to.

The purpose of a review article
You are generally invited to provide a review article because you have particular experience and expertise in the field. It is therefore important that you include aspects of your own individual knowledge, in addition to including a critical and up-to-date review of the literature in the field.

Structure and content

Title: This will often have been provided by the journal which has invited your review. If you are unhappy with the title provided, you can ask for it to be altered. Generally, titles should be short and clearly convey the main purpose of the review. Sometimes, a provocative title, perhaps posed as a question, will attract the readership, particularly if the topic is one in which there is debate and controversy.

Abstract: quite often journals require the review to include a brief over view of the topic and conclusions. This is usually bestwritten last, when the manuscript is otherwise completed. It should be a clear and succinct summary of the important points and conclusions in your review.

Introduction: this might include the historical context of the topic and why the topic is important in current clinical and radiological practice. This “paints the background” to your review which is to follow.

Main portion of manuscript: this might cover the details of a procedure (indications, selection of appropriate patients, execution, complications, etc), or imaging features of a specific condition, strengths and weaknesses of various imaging techniques etc. This will vary according to the nature of the topic under review. If there is controversy and debate on the subject of the review don’t be afraid to express your personal views and opinions based on your experience. It is also legitimate to provoke debate, if appropriate where there is uncertainty. If there are areas which are unresolved and which require further research, then specify these, and how they might be best investigated.

Conclusions: this may, or may not, be required but should be a short, clear and succinct summary of your review.

References: as with any scientific article these must be given in the style of the journal. There should be a comprehensive list of references but those provided should be what you judge to be the most important and pertinent to the topic. If there are seminal articles that you know of and which pre-date electronic search programmes do include these also, as it is important that people do not “re-invent the wheel”. Often the older articles are better written than those produced more recently and can put certain topics into historical perspective, which is sometime neglected.