
Speaking at meetings is a quicker way of reporting work than writing articles. Unfortunately, as the number of medical meetings increases, the communications delivered become harder to understand. There are several reasons for this. Formerly the contents of papers often consisted of brief descriptions of clinical or pathological conditions, whereas today scientific papers may occupy an entire session. Greater care is then demanded from the speaker and sometimes more intelligence from his audience. Priority is given to research. Also, the trend towards specialisation — each speciality with its own jargon and terminology — creates problems in intercommunication. One sometimes wonders whether general meetings will not soon become impracticable. Nevertheless, none of these developments should prevent a communication being understood, provided that it is properly delivered. Sometimes in a meeting lasting many hours, one communication only may be conspicuous for its clarity and fine slides — its presentation so concise and easy that few appreciate the work that went into its construction.
Audiovisual Aids, Communication, Research, Humans, Medicine
Audiovisual Aids, Communication, Research, Humans, Medicine
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
