PEMSoft is unique

Section Editors role

Section Editor's are responsible for reviewing and updating all their Section's Topics in a two year cycle. Additionally, they will update a Topic contemporaneously if there is a major development or change in practice. Most Section Editor's co-ordinate a small team of PEMSoft Contributors that they recruit. Many Section Editors have made special contributions in addition to the traditional editing role:

• Michelle Lin MD has contributed many procedural videos
• Graham Walker MD has contributed MD Calc+

Editing team

Access to Editor's Topic Assignment and Contact Information

Editors must log on to access password-protected contact information about other Section Editors. Contact information and a Topic list showing each editor's assignments is not available for public viewing but will become available as a submenu of "Section Editors" after logging on. Editor's can logon in the right margin of this page.

Communication between Section Editors

Editors must log on to access password-protected contact information about other Section Editors. Communication between Section Editors is sometimes required. Editors should communicate with other Section Editor's when there is overlap of content or if they have suggestions for content in another Editor's Section.

Continuous review

Section Editor's are expected to review all their content every two years according to a schedule provided by the co-Editors-in-Chief Ron Dieckmann and Rob Pitt. Also, Section Editors should keep abreast of medical advances and developments for their assigned areas and provide Ron or Rob with a summary of any significant new developments in their Topics, for inclusion in the next version of PEMSoft. New versions are produced approximately once per month.

Quality control and evidence base

We require a high level of consistency, timeliness and quality in the content.  When  Editors begin review of individual Topics, it is essential to do a literature search and  look at several current references (last five years) and search several databases to assure timeliness and completeness, and to build in the highest level of evidence for recommendations.  In general, the best evidence exists in treatment recommendations, with less evidence for assessment and disposition recommendations.  We are not asking for a determination of “level of evidence” for recommendations in this version, although we may move to that in the future.