Dr. James Manos (MD)
March 31, 2019
Medical Oxford Handbooks: My Review & Remarks
Image (free to use): Facade of the Oxford University Press building from Walton Street (April 9, 2021). Author: Jonas Magnus Lystad. Uploaded by the user: Jonas Magnus Lystad. Wikipedia - Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oxford_University_Press_Building_%E2%80%93_Walton_Street.jpg
This article was sent initially as an email to the Medical Oxford Handbooks. But they never replied, so I decided to post it on my blog!
The Value of the Medical Oxford Handbooks
Regarding the Medical Oxford Handbooks, these are my favorites as they include all the TIPS that medics need. I have read these books enthusiastically since they were first published. I read various medical books, not only those referring to my medical specialty. Healthcare professionals should have a comprehensive medical education.
My concerns - remarks
I want to share some considerations as a doctor and a writer. Deprived of the following flaws, the Medical Oxford Handbooks would be
First and foremost, in all books, the authors often add excerpts of literature, including poems, irrelevant to medicine. Additionally, the Oxford Handbooks are often impregnated with philosophical thoughts. Their incentive is to attract the viewers' attention.
Secondly, the texts are NHS (National Health System) and NICE oriented. They refer only to England (such as in the Mental Acts in the OHCS) rather than the UK, including Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. They refer only to the British healthcare system as if they are red only by a British and not an international audience.
A third issue is that the style is imperative (''do this,'' ''do that''), but this cannot be avoided in a short medical handbook. Another matter of concern is bias. Biased interpretations are not avoided in these books. Gender bias is also an issue, as in some books, the writers alternate between male and female gender, something that is at least ''awkward'' as they could merely refer to both sexes or say ''he/she'' or ''he or she'' or ''they.''
What I describe above as a better approach is a similar book by Oxford University Press, the American version of the medical handbook (Oxford American Handbook of Clinical Medicine) that is deprived of '''philosophical thoughts.'' However, the American edition has abbreviations that are not explained and/ or are different from the British, such as ''FBC'' instead of ''CBC,'' ''ER'' instead of ''ED'' / ''A&E'' or ''epinephrine,'' or ''epi'' instead of ''adrenaline''.
What I describe above as a better approach is a similar book by Oxford University Press, the American version of the medical handbook (Oxford American Handbook of Clinical Medicine) that is deprived of '''philosophical thoughts.'' However, the American edition has abbreviations that are not explained and/ or are different from the British, such as ''FBC'' instead of ''CBC,'' ''ER'' instead of ''ED'' / ''A&E'' or ''epinephrine,'' or ''epi'' instead of ''adrenaline''.
Regarding the mental health section of the OHCS, in the 8th edition, the authors often use examples from internet ''blogs'' (called ''quotes'') from bloggers instead of experiences from real patients with a specific diagnosis. In the same section, nearly half of the chapter mirrors the personal view of the writer, flourished with poems and literature, while the remaining is pure medicine. Paradoxically, in the same section of the OHCS, the 10th mini edition is more medical than medicine, mingled with poems and philosophical thoughts, perhaps because of the size that requires them to be brief.
My recommendations
Medical Oxford Handbooks should use more or exclusively category-rated ABCDE evidence-based medicine and Cochrane reviews & meta-analyses rather than randomized controlled trials (RTCs) that, in isolation, are useless as they may be overthrown by recent studies.
Medical Oxford Handbooks should use more or exclusively category-rated ABCDE evidence-based medicine and Cochrane reviews & meta-analyses rather than randomized controlled trials (RTCs) that, in isolation, are useless as they may be overthrown by recent studies.
They should be deprived of bias (including gender bias) and use gender-neutral language instead of alternating between 'he' and 'she' as they did in an edition that I recently read. They should also avoid poems and philosophical ideas like literature books.
Moreover, they should refrain from the imperative style as their audience is not necessarily medical students. Finally, they should have a contact option for their viewers.
Lastly, as they have yet to reply to my email, they should be keen to respond to their contacts, especially experts like me.
Conclusion
I have always been an enthusiastic reader of Oxford Medical Handbooks. Although they have not replied to my email, I hope my public remarks in this text are considered. Oxford handbooks should be deprived of bias, including gender bias and irrelevant data such as philosophical views and poems. Instead, they should adopt a strict, non-imperative academic style like the German medical books.
Thanks for reading!