An example of Vancouver Style
Extract from: Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS, Chung W. Return of Secondary Genomic Findings vs Patient Autonomy: Implications for Medical Care. JAMA. 2013;310(4):369-370.
In April 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recommended that clinical laboratories conducting whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES) for specific clinical indications should also analyze and report any mutations identified from a list of 57 genes considered medically actionable, regardless of whether patients wish to receive the results.1 These recommendations have sparked a heated debate with profound implications for countless physicians and their patients.
Identification of mutations in these genes2 is not trivial, given the multitude of errors in the scientific literature about the pathogenicity of many genetic variants, the inexact science of predicting pathogenicity computationally, and the inability to perform the necessary functional experiments to test for pathogenicity.
1. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. http://www.acmg.net/docs/ACMG_Releases_HighlyAnticipated_Recommendations_on_Incidental_Findings_in_Clinical_Exome_and_Genome_Sequencing.pdf.
2. Wheeler DA, Srinivasan M, Egholm M, et al. The complete genome of an individual by massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nature. 2008; 452(7189):872–876. [PubMed: 18421352]
Where to get more help:
Check out the official guide to the Vancouver style in the NLM publication "Citing Medicine" below: