INTRODUCTION

The opportunity to analyze the differences in what was written in the first four volumes of Pediatrics in 1948 through 1949 and the contents of the most recent volumes in 1996 through 1997 begs the question of why medical journals should be read. For most physicians, at least initially, it is the perceived need to "keep up." The implied message, reinforced by medical school and residency faculty, is that those who fail to be familiar with the most late-breaking developments will invariably make mistakes and kill someone. Most physicians have an unread stack of journals on bedside tables with attendant guilt that comes as naturally to us as breathing. This dark cloud dissipates only slowly through the years as we see so much "new" information become obsolete, discredited, or simply unused, and question the extent to which journal articles affect how we practice.

It is in this realmthe relevance of journal articles to influencing medical practiceswhere the contents of past and current volumes diverge. In essence, although Pediatrics has consistently been directed toward the interests of general pediatricians like myself, there were a higher percentage of articles in earlier editions that affected how we practiced. In the 1996 through 1997 volumes, there is a smaller proportion of articles that the general pediatrician needs to read to stay au current. I do not mean to disparage my favorite journal. It is just that "keeping up" is no longer the primary reason to read Pediatrics; intellectual stimulation and relaxed pleasure is. I enjoy reading the Journal in the same way I enjoy a current affairs periodical such as the New Republic. The articles may not change what tests I order or what antibiotic I prescribe, but rather provide enrichment through appreciation of developments taking place in my profession.

Not surprisingly, . . . [Full Text of this Article]