I have read the Editor-in-Chief's editorial in the January 2012 issue and note that there is an increased online readership. Perhaps, it is then'time to reassess the use of abbreviations. Many articles are readable only with frequent, annoying reference to explanations of abbreviations scattered earlier in the text. I suggest that the Journal publish a list of acceptable abbreviations such as are likely to be known to all readers, for example FBC, RBC, WCC, Hb, CRP, LFTs, ACE, CAD, MRI, LV, RV, EF, MD, AMI, CNS, CT, SLE, DVT, VTE, MTX, ICU, MRSA, TNF, RACP, etc., and that you require all other words to be spelled out in full throughout the text or tabled at the beginning. This would increase the number of pages -by one or two at most, irrelevant for online readers. Long words do not even have to be typed over and over if a macro is used. I defy anyone reading the issue mentioned earlier to have memorised the following that appear at frustrating intervals: RRMS, SPMS, PPMS, TBR, TBI, ACEI, HREC, HoMER, SSFP, CMR, SSFP, STIR, AAR, MVO, LGE, MACE, MCP1, SCI, TC, TTE, DHB, MAPU, LOS, RACF, GOLD, PsA, MMF, TTR, FAP, LABG, AUC, MIC.
展开▼
