Yes, limited first-person voice is allowed in medical reviews when describing your actions, if the target journal permits it.
Writers ask about first-person voice because medical publishing prizes clarity and neutrality. You can write a sharp, readable review without sounding stiff. The core idea is simple: use first person to describe what you did, then keep claims about evidence impersonal and source-driven. Most journals accept that split, and leading guidance supports it when done with care.
Using First-Person Voice In Medical Reviews: House Rules
Medical editors care less about banning a pronoun and more about accuracy, transparency, and reader ease. In practice, that means “we searched,” “we included,” and “we rated risk of bias” sit well in Methods. In Results and Discussion, keep the spotlight on the data and the studies, not the authors. This balance keeps tone neutral while still telling the reader exactly what actions you took.
Why Policies Differ Across Journals
Style sheets vary. Some journals follow a strict third-person tradition; others now favor active statements that plainly state author actions. Reporting frameworks for reviews ask you to describe your process in direct language, which naturally leads to first-person verbs in Methods. Your job is to align with the specific journal while staying readable.
Policy Snapshot: What Major Guides Say
Here’s a quick scan of widely used guides and what they allow regarding first-person usage in scholarly writing and review reporting. Use this as orientation, then confirm the target journal’s instructions for authors.
| Authority/Guide | Stance On First Person | Practical Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| ICMJE Recommendations | Focus on clear, accurate reporting; active phrasing is acceptable where it aids clarity. | Use “we” for author actions in Methods if it reads clean and matches journal style. |
| APA Style (7th) | Allows first-person pronouns to describe your work; advises against referring to yourself in third person. | Say “I/we searched” rather than “the authors searched.” |
| PRISMA 2020 | Requires transparent reporting of what was done; does not ban first person. | Write direct, method-level statements that map to the checklist items. |
| Cochrane Style Manual | Promotes consistent, plain language across reviews. | Use plain active verbs to report steps; keep interpretation evidence-led. |
| AMA-Aligned Style Sheets | Permit active voice; preferences vary by journal. | Favor clarity. If active “we” is allowed, use it in Methods with restraint. |
When First Person Helps (And When It Doesn’t)
Use first person where it shortens sentences and removes ambiguity about who did what. Skip it where it pulls focus from evidence or invites opinion. The following sections give you concrete boundaries that satisfy editors and peer reviewers.
Green-Light Uses
- Methods, Protocol, and Deviations: “We registered the protocol,” “We searched MEDLINE and Embase,” “We added CINAHL post-hoc due to sparse trials.”
- Screening And Selection: “We screened titles and abstracts in duplicate,” “We resolved disagreements by consensus.”
- Appraisal And Synthesis: “We used RoB 2,” “We calculated random-effects models,” “We performed subgroup analyses by dose.”
Yellow-Light Uses
- Interpretation: Tread lightly. Tie every claim to data. “We interpret these findings as…” is workable if followed by concrete results and limits.
- Recommendations: If the journal invites practice pointers, anchor them in study strength, effect size, and certainty ratings.
Red-Light Uses
- Anecdotal Claims: Personal stories or self-experiments don’t belong in a formal evidence review.
- Value-laden Language: Steer clear of hype words and vague superlatives.
How To Match A Journal’s Style
Editors expect you to follow the house style exactly. A fast way to align is to study three recent reviews from the same journal. Note how authors describe searches, screening, and synthesis. Then mirror that phrasing, tense, and pronoun use.
Quick Alignment Checklist
- Read the Instructions for Authors and the linked style guide.
- Scan recent articles for voice and tense patterns.
- Match section labels and order used by that journal.
- Map your Methods sentences to a reporting checklist item.
- Trim any self-referential lines that do not serve clarity.
Trusted Rules You Can Cite Inside The Paper
Two sources cover both tone and transparency. The APA guidance on first-person pronouns states that you may use “I” or “we” to describe your work and recommends avoiding third-person self-reference. The PRISMA 2020 materials set out what to report in review Methods and Results, which pairs well with direct active statements. Link these in your manuscript where your journal allows reference to style or reporting standards.
Section-By-Section Voice Guide
Use this section map to keep tone steady and suitable for a medical audience. It keeps author actions clear while placing findings front and center.
Title And Abstract
Leave first-person voice out of the title. In the abstract, many journals prefer impersonal phrasing. If the journal permits it, one tight line such as “We searched four databases…” can fit, but only if space allows and the journal’s own abstracts show that pattern.
Introduction
Set the clinical question, population, and outcomes without self-reference. Let citations carry the narrative. Keep this section lean.
Methods
This is the natural home for first-person lines. Use active verbs, short clauses, and named tools. Name databases, dates, inclusion rules, data items, and appraisal tools. Keep everything reproducible. Readers should be able to retrace every step.
Results
Shift away from “we” and let the numbers speak. Keep verbs tied to evidence: “The meta-analysis showed…,” “Trials reported…,” “Confidence intervals crossed the null.” This keeps tone steady and avoids personal framing of outcomes.
Discussion
Lead with the primary answer to the question, then scope limits, heterogeneity, and sensitivity outcomes. If first person appears here, use it to explain choices, not to inflate claims: “We chose a random-effects model due to between-study variance.”
Conclusions Section Label
Many journals use a fixed label for the closing section. Keep it brief, data-anchored, and free of self-reference unless a sentence about next steps adds reader value.
Model Phrases For Clean Methods Writing
Use these templates to keep sentences short and crisp. Swap in your databases, dates, and tools. Adjust tense to match the journal’s pattern.
Search And Selection
- “We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from 2010 to 2025.”
- “We included randomized trials and cohort studies meeting prespecified criteria.”
- “We screened records in duplicate and resolved disagreements by a third reviewer.”
Data Extraction And Appraisal
- “We extracted study design, participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and funding.”
- “We assessed risk of bias with RoB 2 for trials and ROBINS-I for nonrandomized studies.”
Synthesis
- “We used random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustments where applicable.”
- “We reported subgroup analyses by dose and study quality.”
Voice Control: What To Say, What To Skip
The table below gives quick swaps that keep tone professional and keeps attention on the evidence. It also guards against value-laden phrasing that ad networks and editors dislike.
| Situation | Better Wording | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Describing actions | “We extracted data in duplicate.” | “The authors humbly extracted the data.” |
| Reporting findings | “Meta-analysis showed no effect on mortality.” | “We think the treatment is amazing.” |
| Stating limits | “Small samples and wide CIs curb certainty.” | “Our view is that limits are minor.” |
Common Edge Cases And How To Handle Them
Single-Author Review
If you wrote the piece alone, “I searched” is acceptable in styles that allow first person. Many medical journals still prefer plural voice even for solo work, since most reviews are team efforts. Let recent articles in your target journal guide you.
Registered Protocols And Deviations
When you registered a protocol, state it directly. If you deviated from the plan, own it with a clear reason and date. That kind of candor builds reader trust and lines up with review reporting norms.
Editorials, Viewpoints, And Narratives
Opinion formats are more flexible, but the same caution applies. Keep claims sourced. Use first person when sharing a stance if the journal invites that mode. Even then, keep your footing on published evidence.
Inclusive Language
Use person-first, bias-free language, and follow any house style guidance on pronouns. Plain, respectful phrasing reads well and avoids distractions.
A Practical Workflow For Voice Decisions
- Pick The Target Journal Early: Voice choices flow from house style.
- Pull Three Exemplars: Note voice, tense, headings, and section length.
- Draft Methods In Active Voice: Short sentences that track a checklist.
- Draft Results In Evidence-Led Voice: Keep “we” out unless reporting an action such as a post-hoc analysis choice.
- Revise With A Pronoun Pass: Trim any “we” that does not increase clarity.
- Final Style Check: Re-read the author guidelines and adjust wording to match.
Templates You Can Paste Into Your Manuscript
Methods Opener (Tight And Direct)
“We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries from inception to 1 March 2025. We included randomized and nonrandomized studies enrolling adults with [condition]. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and rated risk of bias. We prespecified outcomes and analysis plans in PROSPERO (CRDxxxxxxxx).”
Results Opener (Evidence-Led)
“The search yielded 6,212 records; 38 studies met criteria (n=12,904). Trials reported mixed dosing strategies and short follow-up. Pooled effects on the primary outcome were small and imprecise.”
Plain-Language Closing Line
“Across moderate-quality evidence, benefits were limited and uncertain; better-designed trials with longer follow-up are needed.”
Ethics, Transparency, And Author Declarations
First-person voice often appears in statements about funding, conflicts, and contributions. Keep these sections factual and complete. Follow the journal’s template for disclosures, roles, and data access. Clear statements here support reader trust and meet publisher rules.
Final Take
You can use first-person voice in a medical review when you describe your actions, especially in Methods. Keep Results and interpretation grounded in the data. Mirror the target journal’s recent articles, follow a reporting checklist, and keep every sentence clean and purposeful. That approach meets both style expectations and reader needs.