55 documents found, page 1 of 6

Estatísticas da SPMI Case Reports e Agradecimento aos Revisores

Revisão pelos Pares e Cidadania Científica

Ethical Challenges and Opportunities in Scientific Publishing with AI

Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of the “Three-question Health Literacy...

Introduction: The Three-question Health Literacy screener (THLSQ) allows to screen health literacy (HL) aiming to adapt it culturally and validate it for European Portuguese.Methods: Ethical authorization and author´s permission, translation and back translation, verification of reliability and readability of THLSQ, 3 questions to answer on an ordinal scale between 1 and 5, 5 being the best answer, allowing sum...

Charting a New Horizon: The Launch of SPOT Orthopaedics Journal

Peer Review at Sinapse: Ensuring Quality in Publication

Computed tomography versus sleep endoscopy (DISE) to predict the effectiveness ...

Funding Information: This work was financed by national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), I.P., under the project UIDB/04585/2020. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Egas Moniz Center for Interdisciplinary Research (CiiEM) and Egas Moniz Schoo...

The Best-Worst Scale in Non-Oncologic Lower Limb Pain

Non-oncologic lower limb pain is a complex condition that influences patients’ quality of life and is challenging to manage due to its multifactorial nature. Traditional pain assessment methods focus on intensity, overlooking broader patient experiences. The Best-Worst Scale (BWS) is an approach that is increasingly used in healthcare, particularly in understanding patient preferences. The aim of this study is ...

Why Do We Reject So Many Articles in Acta Médica Portuguesa?

N/A; N/A

Peer review and scientific citizenship

[Excerpt] At the launch of the first issue of the journal Medicina Interna, it is unavoidable not to reflect on the previous year's issues. And we never tire of repeating it every year: there is a hidden work, without which there is no quality editing – the work of the reviewers. First, it is up to us, the Editorial Board, to sincerely thank all the Reviewers who contributed to the quality of the scientific edi...