JAMA Editors' Summary: On research in medicine, science, & clinical practice. For physicians, researchers, & clinicians.

JAMA Editors' Summary: On research in medicine, science, & clinical practice. For physicians, researchers, & clinicians.

Published by: JAMA Network
661 Episodes | First Released: Feb 28 '06
Weekly Editor's Audio Summary for JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association
Label
PathMax
Aug 26 '17
Rating:   10
Awesome podcast

To all the people that love to criticize, it's easy for you to criticize, but it's much more difficult to contribute...

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
wmdny
Aug 21 '17
Rating:   10
I like Dr. Livingston's voice.

The new narrator (who was actually on a prior podcast episode), Dr. Livingston, is nice. That said, I agree with @flyingpoodle's review, it does make it slightly harder to follow, but if you're multi-tasking it tends to break up the segments a bit so you know. The intro of external guest voices in mid-sentence (... "an article titled...") was a bit jarring, more appropriate for, say, a narrator reading a children's storybook to children when a character's voice suddenly appears in the middle of a sentence. Sometimes news radio lead-ins will hand it off as stating a one-sentence summary or lead, and then introducing the next speaker. From a production value standpoint, with external guests, it's odd that they're recording an inbound phone call as opposed to asking the authors to record a Voice Memo on an iPhone or use any more modern high-quality call platform.The back stretch of the most recent podcast in the new format is all Dr. Livingston, though, and it's nice.While I don't dislike Howard Bauchner's voice from prior episodes, I do happen to work in New York -- so not all listeners across the country may be used to his sort of voice. Also, I admit I liked Ed Livingston's voice better, in both intonation and pacing. Like some others, I miss Dr. DeAngelis, but wow, the comments section is all over the place for prior podcast versions featuring her voice!Most recently, the JAMA podcast did away with the cute, quirky intro theme that sounded like a 2010-era iPhone ringtone. The intro theme is now replaced with stock B-roll audio that sounds like we're about to watch an HR training video. While this sounds more "professional", there are probably newer ways of adding audio bumpers to signal the start, transitions, and end of the podcast, and something that's unique to JAMA as opposed to a generic library of stock audio.The broader issue is one of the structure of medical scientific content. We are accustomed to a predictable format -- intro, methods, results, discussion -- that reveals the "so what?" at the end, with titles that tease the question but don't reveal the answer. In audio & news-bulletin type summaries, the emphasis may be more on the "so what?", potentially even inverting the format of abstracts.To each their own, I suppose. Remember how JAMA used to have cover art? Listeners may vary in their appreciation of the artistic & stylistic aspects of the Podcast, versus cold, sterile and relentless "just the facts" formats.But overall, this is a great and high-impact podcast and regardless of the stylistic elements -- the art here is getting the style elements done in a way that helps readers remember the content better. Comments sections will attract nit-pickers (like me), but most likely the vast majority of listeners to the JAMA Editors' Summary are quietly thankful and satisfied.

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
flyingpoodle
Aug 17 '17
Rating:   10
Great summaries, old format better.

I prefer a single voice throughout the podcast, I can understand the appeal to some of having authors speak about their articles, but it makes it harder for me to follow. I like your podcast because of the single voice format, not in spite of it.

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
guy11111111
Jul 11 '17
Rating:   8
Good, short summary of recent research

I'm a first year medical student trying to get an introduction to current research. This is a very approachable, quick and easy way to see what is going on. I disagree with negative comments about the host. He is great, and is very appropriate for th medium, being the editor in chief of JAMA.

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
SkepticalWV
Feb 29 '12
Rating:   6
Recent narrators even worse than DeAngelis

I sort of liked Dr DeAngelis's podcast readings, not a professional voice but clear and understandable and sometimes humorous. Since she left the newer narrators are much worse, not at all enjoyable or entertaining. Annals of Internal Medicine podcast also used to be great and now stinks due to lousy readers. Both journals need to get someone better!

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
MATTMT
Jan 28 '12
Rating:   2
Needs Editing

Regading the podcast for Vol 307, No. 2: The podcast sounds like it was recorded in brief 30 second segments and at least 2 repeat making the podcast sound like a broken record.

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
Impact Factor
Jan 30 '11
Rating:   2
Good journal, bad podcast

It's a good journa; great articles and excellent popular interest pieces. Absolutely terrible narration. It's distractingly bad. I haven't listened in a year and really wish I could. Wish it were more like the Annals podcast; fun narration, interviews, etc

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
whhaymd
Jan 2 '11
Rating:   2
Needs a lot of work

Pod cast little more than a reading of abstracts and titles of articles, not much help. Look at NEJM as an example of a useful podcast - summaries most of the articles nicely so I can select the few I really need to read completely. And if your going to to a short podcast, I think spending 10% of your time discussing a painting I can't really see on my ipod is a waste of time.

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
MarkSelden
Nov 18 '09
Rating:   4
Not the Right Person for the Job

Just tuned in this week for the first time, so very disappointed to hear at the end of the podcast that the editor intends to continue as the reader/personality. I found it grating; humor that falls completely flat, and a singsong reading style that just doesn't convey meaning very well. I see others like the podcast, so perhaps it's a matter of taste. I will say she sounds like a very nice person. For a more professional, entertaining, information-rich equivalent, try the Johns Hopkins Podmed (relevant, informative), or the Annals of Internal Medicine Podcast (interviews, clear article summaries, and very funny humor).

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
Label
pterandon
Oct 25 '09
Rating:   4
Too sing-songy a voice

I had to stop listening.

Reviewed on Apple Podcasts
0:00 / 0:00