Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› the-lancet-respiratory-medicine
the-lancet-respiratory-medicine
GitHub辅助评估呼吸与危重症研究是否适合《柳叶刀·呼吸医学》。提供期刊定位、高影响力证据标准、报告指南及拒稿启发式规则，用于投稿适配性检查与框架重构，非临床建议。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定目标期刊为《柳叶刀·呼吸医学》并需进行适配性或框架检查
需要针对国际性实践改变问题重新构建试验或大型队列研究
在《柳叶刀·呼吸医学》、ATS期刊和普通医学期刊间选择投稿目标
查询该期刊对呼吸/危重症证据的报告指南、注册要求及拒稿预期
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill the-lancet-respiratory-medicine -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "the-lancet-respiratory-medicine",
"description": "Use when targeting The Lancet Respiratory Medicine or deciding whether a respiratory or critical-care study fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the practice-changing trial and major-cohort evidence bar, reporting-guideline and registration requirements, Lancet specialty house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. Venue-fit aid only, not clinical advice."
}
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (the-lancet-respiratory-medicine)
Journal positioning
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine is a Lancet specialty journal for high-impact clinical and population research across respiratory medicine and critical care — asthma, COPD, interstitial and pulmonary vascular disease, respiratory infection, sleep and ventilation, lung cancer screening, and intensive-care/critical-care medicine. It favors practice-changing randomized trials, major prospective cohorts, and analyses with clear international clinical or policy consequence, with a strong emphasis on methodological rigor, generalizable populations, and patient-important outcomes. Small single-center series, mechanistic/basic-science work without a clinical endpoint, and incremental subgroup re-analyses are a weak fit and belong in a translational or broader-scope respiratory journal. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing aid; it is not clinical or regulatory advice and does not replace the journal's current instructions for authors. Before submitting, re-check the live The Lancet Respiratory Medicine author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names The Lancet Respiratory Medicine for a respiratory or critical-care clinical/population study and wants a fit/framing check.
- A trial or large cohort must be re-framed around an international, practice-changing respiratory or critical-care question.
- The author is choosing between The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the ATS "Blue Journal", and general medicine.
- The author needs the journal's reporting-guideline, registration, and desk-reject expectations for respiratory/critical-care evidence.
Scope & topic fit
- Randomized trials in airways disease (asthma, COPD), pulmonary vascular and interstitial lung disease, respiratory infection, and sleep/ventilation.
- Critical-care and intensive-care trials and cohorts (ARDS, mechanical ventilation, sepsis-related respiratory failure) with patient-important outcomes.
- Large prospective cohorts and high-quality observational studies addressing respiratory disease burden, prognosis, or treatment effect at scale.
- Lung-cancer screening, diagnosis, and prevention studies with population-level or practice-changing implications.
- Pragmatic and implementation trials, and well-powered diagnostic studies, relevant to respiratory or critical-care practice internationally.
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that resolve a focused, clinically consequential respiratory question.
Method & evidence bar
- Trials must be adequately powered with prespecified, patient-important primary outcomes (mortality, exacerbations, lung function with clinical anchoring, quality of life); surrogate-only endpoints need strong justification.
- The applicable reporting guideline and completed checklist are expected: CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, STARD for diagnostic accuracy.
- Trials require prospective registration; the registration number, protocol, and statistical-analysis plan are expected, with an independent data-monitoring rationale where relevant.
- Observational and critical-care cohort claims must address confounding, immortal-time and selection bias, and missing data; causal language must match the design.
- Effect estimates need confidence intervals and absolute as well as relative measures; generalizability across settings/populations should be argued, not assumed.
- Multi-center and international evidence strengthens fit; single-center critical-care series rarely clear the bar without exceptional outcomes.
Structure & house style
- Lancet specialty format with a structured summary and a Research in context / evidence-before-this-study panel; re-check current article types and limits on the live guide.
- The introduction frames the international clinical or policy gap; the discussion states the practice consequence and limitations plainly.
- A CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA flow diagram is expected where applicable; tables/figures follow Lancet statistical-reporting standards.
- The role of the funding source statement and a data-sharing statement are expected; appendices carry protocol, full statistical methods, and additional analyses.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the ICMJE/EQUATOR and Lancet anchors, then cite the current The Lancet Respiratory Medicine page you checked. - Search the live site for "The Lancet Respiratory Medicine information for authors" and follow the current version.
- Re-check article types, structured-summary and Research in context format, and word/reference/figure limits.
- Confirm trial registration, the reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/STARD), protocol/SAP, the role-of-funding-source statement, and data-sharing statement.
- Re-check IRB/ethics and consent, ICMJE authorship and conflict-of-interest disclosure, funding, and AI-use disclosure.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The study answers an international, practice-changing respiratory or critical-care question.
- The primary outcome is prespecified and patient-important; the study is adequately powered.
- The correct reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/STARD) is completed and attached.
- Trials are prospectively registered with the number in the manuscript; protocol/SAP provided.
- Confounding, selection/immortal-time bias, and missing data are addressed; causal language matches the design.
- IRB/consent, ICMJE disclosures, role-of-funding-source, and a data-sharing statement are prepared.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Single-center or underpowered respiratory/critical-care studies with limited generalizability and no practice change.
- Mechanistic or basic-science work with no clinical endpoint, better suited to a translational journal.
- Surrogate-only endpoints (e.g., a lung-function change with no clinical anchoring) presented as definitive.
- Missing trial registration, protocol, or the required reporting checklist.
- Observational analyses with inadequate confounding control or overstated causal claims.
- Narrow or incremental scope without international clinical or policy consequence.
Re-routing decision
- Translational, mechanistic, or basic-plus-clinical respiratory science →
american-journal-of-respiratory-and-critical-care-medicine(ATS "Blue Journal", broader scope). - Diabetes/endocrine or metabolic respiratory comorbidity dominant →
the-lancet-diabetes-and-endocrinology. - Population/policy framing without a clinical respiratory endpoint →
the-lancet-public-health. - Lung-cancer therapeutics as the core oncology contribution →
annals-of-oncology/jama-oncology. - Broad, practice-changing significance beyond respiratory specialty → general medicine (
jama/ NEJM / The Lancet in the natural-science bundle).
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
[Specialty tags] <2–3 closest respiratory/critical-care topics>
[Study design / reporting guideline] <RCT-CONSORT / cohort-STROBE / review-PRISMA / diagnostic-STARD>
[Method/evidence] <power, design, registration, generalizability — does it clear the practice-changing bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / registration / checklist / role-of-funding / ethics / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:37
