2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2016 Jan 10, Shashi Seshia commented:

      I regret there is an error in the formatting of the abstract that may cause some confusion. Readers are requested to look at the abstract in the review. Briefly, the key points are: 1.SUMMARY OF THE APPRAISAL: should be BOLDED the 3rd main heading, equivalent to results.Subheadings under this would include: (i) Strengths: Clinical pearls...including the examples (which should not be bolded), (ii) Weaknesses, (iii) Notable Omissions, and (iv) Additional issues. Shashi Seshia January 10, 2016


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2016 Jan 10, Shashi Seshia commented:

      I regret there is an error in the formatting of the abstract that may cause some confusion. Readers are requested to look at the abstract in the review. Briefly, the key points are: 1.SUMMARY OF THE APPRAISAL: should be BOLDED the 3rd main heading, equivalent to results.Subheadings under this would include: (i) Strengths: Clinical pearls...including the examples (which should not be bolded), (ii) Weaknesses, (iii) Notable Omissions, and (iv) Additional issues. Shashi Seshia January 10, 2016


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.