Clinical Review
Praxis
Case Reports
Commentary
Research
Clinical Discoveries
Third Rail
Residents' Views
Hypothesis
Teaching Moment
First Five Years
IMPORTANT NOTE TO AUTHORS
Thank you for your interest in submitting your work to Canadian Family Physician. Below you will find detailed guidelines for the types of articles published in the journal. Please be aware that failure to comply with these guidelines will result in automatic un-submission and rejection of a manuscript without the opportunity for a re-submission.
During the COVID-19 pandemic please be aware that Canadian Family Physician’s normal peer review processes have been affected and the time from submission of a manuscript to a final decision may be longer than usual.
Clinical Review Articles
Canadian Family Physician (CFP) seeks comprehensive, informative clinical review articles, particularly in the “Update” and “Approach To” categories. Articles must be evidence based and focus on clinical conditions that are regularly encountered by practising family physicians.
“Update” articles should be structured as Introduction (with objective), Quality of Evidence, Main Message, and Conclusion. Articles should be from 1200 to 2000 words maximum, excluding tables and references. Abstracts should not exceed 300 words and should be structured under the headings Objective, Quality of Evidence, Main Message, and Conclusion. “Update” articles should focus on mainstream clinical topics in which a change in thinking has taken place or is taking place. These articles should be designed to answer the question “Where do we stand today?” They should pull together the latest evidence and best current thinking and give family physicians a practical and comprehensive overview of diagnosis and treatment.
“Approach To” articles should be structured as Case Introduction, Sources of Information, Main Message, and Conclusion. Articles should be from 1200 to 2000 words maximum, excluding tables and references. Abstracts should not exceed 300 words and should be structured under the headings Objective, Sources of Information, Main Message, and Conclusion. Approach To articles should focus on specific new, alternative, or more effective approaches to diagnosis and treatment of conditions seen by family physicians. Outline the approach and point out its advantages and disadvantages. Describe when, where, and under what circumstances the approach is most useful or effective. Describe how the approach differs from others and why. Indicate areas of controversy and alternative approaches.
The case described in the introduction should be used to illustrate your points and be wrapped up at the end of the section.
When recommendations fit the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, these should be included.
When recommendations are based on specific evidence, provide references, and give level of evidence (I to III) in parentheses.
Level I: At least one properly conducted randomized controlled trial, systematic review, or meta-analysis.
Level II: Other comparison trials, non-randomized, cohort, case-control, or epidemiologic studies, and preferably more than one study.
Level III: Expert opinion or consensus statements.
References should be relevant and current and properly formatted
Praxis
Articles in the Praxis (formerly Practice Tips) section are intended to be short and highly focused on a specific technique for dealing with situations frequently encountered by family physicians.
Introduce the problem being addressed and mention how the technique was discovered. Describe indications for application and known or suspected contraindications.
Provide a list of materials. Describe the technique in a step-by-step manner with attention to potential pitfalls and with enough detail to permit other physicians to carry out the procedure. Provide an illustration appropriate to the essential part of the technique or a difficult aspect of its application. Estimate costs, if known.
Discuss your experience with the technique. How has it changed your practice? Provide an estimate of efficacy and discuss possible alternatives. Indicate whether this tip has been described before (briefly describe your literature search). A tip does not have to be entirely original materialbut should have a definite clinical application.
Cite a maximum of 5 references. Length shouldnot exceed 900 words, including tables and figures.
Case Reports
Canadian Family Physician wants to publish interesting or unusual cases seen in the Canadian family practice setting, aspects of which have the potential to be instructive for practising family physicians. Case reports may describe everything from new or unusual presentations of common conditions to unusual adverse reactions to medications. The lead author should be a Canadian family medicine resident or family physician. Consent must be obtained if the patient is in any way identifiable. Care should nevertheless be taken to protect the identity and privacy of the patient. Maximum number of words is 1200, including tables and figures.
Case reports should be structured as follows:
Summary – Up to 150 words summarizing the case presentation and outcome.
Background – Why is this case important for family physicians?
Description of Case – Case description should give a concise account of the case. Include only relevant, diagnostically important data. A chronological sequence provides logical structure.
Investigations – Where applicable.
Differential Diagnosis – Where applicable.
Discussion and Conclusion – Why is the case important and what lessons are to be learned? Concisely compare the case to the literature. Briefly describe the literature search, including databases, MeSH words, and years searched. Select only those strictly relevant to the case reported and its discussion. Include a brief review of similar published cases if relevant.
Bottom Line – Up to 5 key points.
Up to 4 key words (MeSH) should be included.
Commentaries
Commentaries are meant to be thoughtful, provocative opinion pieces that present fresh thinking in family medicine. They stimulate debate or propose a new way of looking at a problem. Originality, ingenuity, and relevance to practising family physicians are the criteria by which we judge commentaries. We also examine the strength and logic of the argument for theposition taken by the author. Build a good case for your proposition!
A commentary may be an opinion piece regarding an issue in family medicine. It may be a social commentary. It may even be a philosophical essay on a topic relevant to family medicine.
Commentaries may also be clinical articles dealing with practical issues in family medicine but tend to be less evidence based and rely more on the opinion and experience of the authors.
Commentaries should generally range from 900 to 1500 words. Some references are welcome but an extensive list is not required.
Research Articles
Authors, please note that the EQUATOR Network provides essential resources for writing and publishing health research by Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research. See the EQUATOR site for reporting guidelines for main study types. Authors should follow current reporting standards that apply to their study design, including:
- Randomised trials must conform to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement on the reporting of RCTs. Include a flow diagram of subjects in the paper and a numbered checklist must be provided as supplementary material. See also the updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
- Qualitative research : see Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations (SRQR). Also see the “Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups”.
- Quality improvement studies : See the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE).
- Economic evaluations : see Consolidated health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement.
- Study Protocols : See the SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. See also the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.
Canadian Family Physician seeks research articles that advance our understanding of family medicine and that have the potential to affect the way family physicians practise medicine.
Articles published in CFP appear on our website at www.cfp.ca, where they join major international medical journals through the HighWire electronic journal publishing facility of Stanford University.
Full content is available at PubMed Central; abstracts are listed on PubMed.
Canadian Family Physician generally publishes one or more full-text research articles in each issue, along with a number of Web exclusive articles that appear online at www.cfp.ca. The full text of online articles also appears in PubMed Central and is fully indexed and searchable. Web -exclusive publication allows us to publish more research in a timelier manner.
Abstracts of research articles are printed in both official languages.
Ethics approval must be indicated for studies with human subjects.
Clinical Trial Registration
Canadian Family Physician will consider clinical trials beginning on or after January 1, 2007, only if the trial is registered before the first patient is enrolled (prospective registration). Authors wishing to submit results of clinical trials to CFP will be required to include the trial registration number and trial registry name at the end of the abstract. If the results of the trial are published in CFP, the registration number and registry name will form part of the published article.
Clinical trial registries (ICMJE, Jan 2006): www.anzctr.org.au www.clinicaltrials.gov www.ISRCTN.orgwww.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp
Quantitative Research
Observational studies in epidemiology (cohort, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies): see STROBE guidelines at:
https://www.equator-network.org/?post_type=eq_guidelines&eq_guidelines_study_design=observational-studies&eq_guidelines_clinical_specialty=0&eq_guidelines_report_section=0&s=+&eq_guidelines_study_design_sub_cat=0
Abstracts should be structured under the headings Objective, Design, Setting, Participants, Interventions, Main Outcome Measures, Results, and Conclusion and should not exceed 300 words. Up to 4 key words (MeSH) should be included. References should be relevant, current, complete, and accurate. Articles should be structured as above and should be no more than 2000words, excluding tables and references.
The introduction should indicate the current state of knowledge, give the context of the study, and be supported by key references. The study objective should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction. What is new or important about this study should be stated clearly.
Methods should include the design, setting, sample frame, selection of participants (inclusion and exclusion criteria), intervention, and outcome measurement instruments’ validity and reliability. Describe statistical testing proposed and sample size calculation. Design should be appropriate to the question.
Results should be clearly presented in text and tables without overlap. Note the response rate, if appropriate. A figure showing the sampling strategy is useful. Results should relate to the research question. Confidence intervals should be used whenever possible. Statistics given should be appropriate to study design and numbers. Results should not include commentary.
Discussion should cover what new information has been found. Describe clinical and statistical significance, how results compare with the literature, possible explanations for results, and future directions for research. Limitations and how they might have affected the results should be discussed. Speculation must be reasonable.
The conclusion should summarize the main findings of the study, relate back to the study’s objectives, and be supported by data found in the study.
Qualitative Research
Qualitative research : see Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations (SRQR). Also see the “Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups”. The link can be found at:
https://www.equator-network.org/?post_type=eq_guidelines&eq_guidelines_study_design=qualitative-research&eq_guidelines_clinical_specialty=0&eq_guidelines_report_section=0&s=
The abstract should be structured under the headings Objective, Design, Setting, Participants, Methods, Main Findings, and Conclusion and should not exceed 300 words. Up to 4 key words (MeSH) should be included. Qualitative studies should not exceed 2500 words, excluding tables and references.
The introduction should indicate the current state of knowledge in the area through a concise literature review. While many qualitative studies do not begin with a theoretical model as a framework, when such a model is used, it should be described. Specify what new information this study will provide. The overall purpose of the study and the specific research question should be clearly described.
The method (eg, in-depth interviews, focus groups, participant observation) chosen should be justified.
The study context and the role of the researcher in the study should be described.
The development of the purposeful sample should reflect the diversity of settings or circumstances of the study topic. Sample size should be adequate to answer the question by reaching saturation.
Information (data) gathering, such as audiorecording, transcribing, and keeping field notes, should be described in enough detail to permit readers to understand the process.
The procedure for data analysis should be clearly described to enhance trustworthiness. These procedures can include standardized coding techniques, triangulation, member checking, use of field notes, theme saturation, and a conscious search for contradictory observations.
Findings is the term used for results in qualitative studies. The interpretations, themes, or concepts created in the analysis should appear to flow logically from the description of the analytic process and should be supported by appropriate quotations. Enough quotations should be cited to ensure that readers get a sense of the richness and quality of the evidence supporting the analysis.
The discussion should state what new information has been discovered. Interpretations and conclusions drawn from the data should be consistent with the evidence presented in the study. The significance of this study in relation to other literature should be addressed and areas for further inquiry suggested. Speculation should be reasonable. Future directions for research should be indicated. Limitations and their effect on findings should be discussed.
The conclusion should summarize the main findings of the study, relate back to the study objective, and be supported by the data found in the study.
Below is information to assist peer-review:
|
|
Is it an Importance of the topic? |
|
|
Originality: if not original, please provide the editors with references to previous works |
|
|
Validity: If there are other important studies that the authors don’t reference, please provide editors with references |
|
|
Is the data collected adequately? |
|
|
Are the methods described sufficiently? |
|
|
Is the analysis appropriate and accurate? |
|
|
Are the Conclusions supported by the data? |
|
|
Do the authors go beyond the evidence in their conclusions? |
|
|
Identify any ethical issues: do you have any ethical concerns about the work? |
|
|
Do the authors have or declare any conflicts of interest? |
|
|
Is the number of references about right
|
|
|
For a Clinical Review or other type of article is there a complete and up-to-date review of the literature? |
|
|
Is there a systematic analysis and synthesis of the literature? |
Systematic Reviews
For Systematic Reviews please see the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement for guidance and manuscript preparation and formatting. The guidelines can be found at:
https://www.equator-network.org/?post_type=eq_guidelines&eq_guidelines_study_design=systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses&eq_guidelines_clinical_specialty=0&eq_guidelines_report_section=0&s=+
Abstracts should be structured under the headings Objective, Data Sources, Study Selection, Synthesis, and Conclusion and should not exceed 300 words. Up to 4 key words (MeSH) should be included. Systematic reviews should be no more than 2000words, excluding tables and references, and should be structured as Introduction (with objective), Data Sources, Study Selection, Synthesis, Discussion, and Conclusion.
The introduction should give background and context to the research question. The question should be clearly stated (as the objective), describing population, maneuver, and outcome where applicable.
Data Sources should describe search strategies used to identify relevant articles. Include databases and key MeSH words.
Study Selection should cite as many primary references as possible. Review references should be used only if they meet the standards of a scientific review. The author’s own articles may be cited if they are primary articles. Explicit methods for including or excluding articles in the analysis should be described.
Synthesis should examine the validity of the primary studies cited, assessed according to critical appraisal principles; a summary table of all studies analyzed is recommended. Information from primary studies should be integrated systematically, explaining the variation in findings in this literature. The rationale for the analysis should be clear to readers.
Discussion should explain what new information has been uncovered. Variation in individual studies and their contribution to the final results should be discussed. Compare the results to existing literature, suggest areas for future research, and note the limitations of the review. Suggest the effect of unpublished or unretrievable literature.
The conclusion should summarize the main findings of the study, be related to the objectives, and be supported by evidence provided in the article.
Clinical Discoveries
Abstracts should generally use the same headings as quantitative studies (Objective, Design, Setting, Participants, Interventions, Main Outcome Measures, Results, and Conclusion), but these may be adapted when appropriate. Abstracts should not exceed 300 words. Clinical Discoveries should be no longer than 1500 words, excluding tables and references.
These are short reports of original studies or evaluations or unique, first-time reports of a clinical case or case series that must be of unusual quality and special interest to merit publication.
Subjects of such articles can include novel approaches to treatment, unanticipated adverse outcomes of treatments, unusual presentations of diseases, or insights gained from changes in the way family physicians work (the effects of family physicians becoming part of larger teams, for example).
Methods should describe how the clinical discovery was made or examined. Describe the literature search, including databases, MeSH words, and years searched. Select only those articles strictly relevant to the case reported and its discussion.
Discussion should state the importance of the case, case series, or clinical observation and compare the findings to the literature.
Conclusion should describe the change in understanding or in the practice of family medicine.
Submissions will be evaluated based on the plausibility of the observations or findings, support from the basic sciences and the relevant literature, the clarity of the concepts presented, and the reproducibility of the procedures. Maximum number of words is 1500, and up to 10 references and 2 tables or figures may be included. Further information about such work can be found by reading the following references.
1. McWhinney IR. Why are we doing so little clinical research? Part 1. Clinical descriptive research. Can Fam Physician2001;47:1701-2 (Eng), 1713-5 (Fr).
2. McWhinney IR. Why are we doing so little clinical research? Part 2. Why clinical research is neglected. Can Fam Physician2001;47:1944-6 (Eng), 1952-5 (Fr).
3. McWhinney IR. Assessing clinical discoveries. Ann Fam Med 2008;6(1):3-5.
Third Rail
The 3rd Rail is a relatively new section of Canadian Family Physician. It is a space for essays about thought-provoking issues relevant in family medicine. It’s called the 3rd Rail because this is the live rail on the track. If you touch it, you die. This space if meant for the discussion of issues that we are often not supposed to talk about. Fortunately, death is not the typical result of having difficult conversations.
Examples of past 3rd Rail articles include:
The toxic power dynamics of gaslighting in medicine https://www.cfp.ca/content/67/5/367
How do we know what we know? https://www.cfp.ca/content/67/11/851
I’m a GP https://www.cfp.ca/content/67/9/691
Soft bodies https://www.cfp.ca/content/68/1/51
3rd Rail essays must include citations and are not meant to be pure opinion pieces. Though they can contain opinions and views on a given subject, scientific citations are needed and facts presented need to be backed by evidence. Between 4-8 citations would be appropriate. Though 3rd Rail pieces are not peer-reviewed, they are read closely by our Editorial staff. It is normal to undergo several rounds of revisions as the essays in this part of the journal need to meet a very high standard. The 3rd Rail is one of the most highly read sections of the journal. The word count should be 900-1200 words.
It is also possible to pair your article with a Third Rail podcast. If you would like to be a guest on our podcast, please indicate your interest in your cover letter. If you have social media, don’t forget to include your handle with your submission (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram) so we can maximize the distribution of your work.
I’m a GP https://cfppodcast.libsyn.com/third-rail-im-a-gp
Agesim and misogyny in long-term care https://cfppodcast.libsyn.com/third-rail-ageism-and-misogyny-in-long-term-care
Residents' Views
Canadian Family Physician is always looking for thoughtful articles from current Canadian family medicine residents.
Articles should deal with current issues relevant to the wider family medicine audience. Avoid articles that will be of interest only (or primarily) to other residents. Think of Residents’ Views as a platform from which residents may address the medical community on issues or perspectives you believe need to be brought to the wider audience.
Be sure to search and review past articles that have appeared in Residents’ Views and avoid duplication of story ideas.
Please contact the Scientific Editor for more information on submitting your article. Maximum number of words is 850.
Hypothesis
Hypothesis articles are intended to provide education on basic research concepts of interest to the general readership of CFP. These might include brief overviews or illustrative examples of research methods and issues. Consider the article an exercise in knowledge translation from the research domain to the clinical domain. Hence, all submissions should be clinically relevant. Hypothesis is published quarterly in CFP. Maximum number of words is 850.
Teaching Moment
Topics for Teaching Moment articles should be useful for family medicine teachers, particularly community-based teachers. Provide a definition of the topic and indicate why it is important in family medicine teaching. Provide evidence from the literature and best practices (include a brief review from several sources, including studies, not only reviews). Please provide no more than 10 references. Offer a concise, point-form list of teaching tips (i.e. the take-away messages), and suggest practical tools and aids to help teachers implement new ideas into their teaching practices. Online sources are encouraged, and resources can be put on the CFP website through the CFPlus service, directly linked to the article online. Please ensure you have permission from the copyright holder, if applicable.
Teaching Moment articles should be no more than 1500 words, excluding references. If tables or figures are large, word length will need to be reduced.
Headings – Selected to be useful for family medicine teachers, particularly community-based teachers.
Background – Definition of the topic and indication of why it is important in family medicine teaching.
Evidence from literature, and best practices – Brief review from several sources, including studies, not only reviews.
Summary of teaching tips – A concise, point-form listing of the take-away messages.
Tools and resources – Practical tools and aids to help teachers implement new ideas into their teaching practices. Online sources are encouraged. Note that resources can be put on the CFP website through the CFPlus service, directly linked to the article online. A box to that effect is added to the print article.
References – No more than 10 references.
First Five Years
First Five Years is a quarterly series in Canadian Family Physician, coordinated by the First Five Years in Family Practice Committee of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.
CFP is looking for thoughtful articles from those in their first 5 years in practice.
Practical tips and thoughtful commentary about the issues faced by those new to practice are welcome. The topics should be useful to those new to practice, but ideally should be relevant a wider family medicine audience as well. First Five Years is a platform from which new-in-practice family doctors can address the medical community on issues or perspectives they feel need to be brought to the wider audience.
Articles should be a maximum of 1500 words. Extensive references are not required.
Articles can be submitted in English or French and will be published in both languages. Please submit manuscript online at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cfp