The Pros And Cons Of Pharmaceutical Nurses

This can be one of the selected articles from your previous literature review or a new peer-reviewed article.

Mmari, K. N., Bradshaw, C. P., Sudhinaraset, M., & Blum, R. (2010). Exploring the Role

After the initial search, about 35 journal readings had to be read thoroughly and closely analyzed. From which, 10 of these journal articles were deemed pertinent to this manuscript. These publications were then saved, printed, and re-analyzed for key information. All publications were chosen from reputable sources via online and only pertinent information relating to this manuscript will be discussed.

MedWin works with an intention to comprehensively cover the frontier of progression in scientific field. The mission of MedWin is to contribute to advancing knowledge by promoting quality research. Our ultimate aim is to publish quality peer reviewed all kinds of works in all the emerging fields of science. We strive with a mission to proliferate superiority knowledge amongst the readers in this fast growing scientific research world.

The current market for clinical research trials is evolving towards increasing productivity in clinical trials. There is a demand for cost-effective, faster, and more efficient clinical trial processes. Clinician and regulatory agencies are requiring more data from clinical trials, increasing the complexity of clinical trials. Trends towards complex clinical trials have created a demand for increasing clinical trial staffing. In addition, companies aiming for more successful clinical trials have had an impact on staffing. Since 2008,

Daymond et al (2011) were of opinion that literature review of a research should be done using a wide range of high quality literatures. On the other hand, Creswell (2007) argued that although an extensive literature review is important, outdated literatures could affect the result and findings of the study. The researchers offered unbiased and overt review by acknowledging the views of many authors and arguments about the problem of the study.

Information for LWW regarding depositing manuscript into PubMed Central: This paper does not need to be deposited in PubMed Central.

Grove et.al’s critical appraisal of a published study guideline will be utilized to assess the quality of the research studies. First, this writer will look at key components of each study, which typically includes: publication title, abstract, introduction, literature review, research methods used to address the research question(s) or hypothesis, statistical analysis used, results, and the researcher’s interpretation and conclusion or recommended use of results to inform future research or practice. During careful reading of the each study, this writer will try to:

“Used to assess the quality of original or primary source research articles and to synthesise evidence from quantitative studies for public health practitioners, policy makers and decision-makers”

In response to the growing complexities of scientific reporting, subsequent editions were released in 1974, 1983, 1994, and 2001. Primarily known for the simplicity of its reference citation style, the Publication Manual also established standards for language use that had far-reaching effects. Particularly influential were the "Guidelines for

It is an Open access scholarly journal that publishes the outright and dependable source of knowledge and information on the discoveries, current developments and disclosure in the mode of Book Review, Case Report, Clinical Trial, Correction, Data Report, Editorial, General Commentary, Hypothesis & Theory, Methods, Mini Review, Opinion, Original Research, Perspective, Review, Specialty Grand Challenge, Technology Report, Protocols, Clinical Study Protocol

Furthermore, utilizing my biology degree, as a stem, with clinical research experience in diverse therapeutic areas, I have become well versed in conduction in-depth research, assisting Principal Investigators with researching trends and outlier related to subject data to help decide the best plan of action for each study. I am adept in AE and SAE reporting, GCP compliance, and subject screening protocols. Moreover, while my on-the-job experience has afford me a well-rounded skill set, including communication and organization skills, in order to execute multiple studies.

Just over one-third of the authors (38.8%; 7/18) are European, and only 5.5% (1/18) came from Asia-Pacific regions (Figure 4a). In contrast, nearly 65% (64.3%; 9/14) of the corresponding authors with no experience of working with PMWs during the development of their peer-reviewed publications were Europeans. Only 14.3% (2/14) came from North America, and 21.4% (3/14) from Asia-Pacific regions (Figure 4b). Overall, despite the low representative number of the corresponding authors for each geographical region, the survey demonstrated that:

Barton, R., Nelsestuen, K., & Mazzeo, C. (2014). Addressing the challenges of building and maintaining effective research partnerships. Lessons Learned, 4, 1-6.

Despite an increasing number of sound reasons support the involvement of PMWs in the publication of clinical trial data in peer-reviewed journals (REF), few data show what value corresponding authors place on PMWs. Our short online survey gathered perspectives of corresponding authors both with and without PMW working experience. Our survey aimed to assess their opinion and gain insight into their understanding of PMW assistance in several steps of the publication process. Our target population was 240 corresponding authors from different part of the world. In contrast with a previous survey, published in 2014 by Marchington and colleagues and limited to corresponding authors in contact with one specific medcomms, we selected our authors