In 2025, many CDT authors make outstanding contributions to our journal. Their articles published with us have received very well feedback in the field and stimulate a lot of discussions and new insights among the peers.

Outstanding Authors (2025)

Inga Voges, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

Martin Teraa, The University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands

Dexter Yak Seng Chan, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore

Takashi Nagasaka, Gunma University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Japan

Aloke V. Finn, CVPath Institute, USA

Álvaro Gamarra, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Spain

Amélie Paquin, Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Canada

Outstanding Author

Inga Voges

Dr. Inga Voges works at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel in Germany. Her research areas are single ventricle patients and cardiovascular magnetic resonance reference values. Her recent projects are the long-term outcome of hypoplastic left heart syndrome and cardiovascular magnetic resonance reference values for ventricular volumes and function parameters.

Dr. Voges thinks academic work is not only important for expanding and disseminating knowledge but also for promoting communication within scientific circles and initiating debates. It also helps to develop ideas for future academic work. Academic writing is characterized by its verifiability and comprehensibility, which enables different views and findings to be weighed against each other.

According to Dr. Voges, an author should have a good overview of the existing literature. This helps considerably in structuring the scientific work and communicating the knowledge. However, she believes it is particularly important to enjoy writing, to be motivated to deal with the topic, and to have perseverance.

In Dr. Voges’s view, data sharing, despite often being impossible due to data protection regulations, can spark collaborations and enhance knowledge through follow-up studies. Additionally, it can foster trust in research by promoting transparency, which in turn can elevate the value of a scientific study.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Martin Teraa

Dr. Martin Teraa works as a vascular surgeon at the University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands. His clinical focus is on aortic pathology and peripheral artery disease (PAD) and (endovascular) treatment of these disease entities. His research focuses align with his clinical work and aims to improve medical and (endovascular) surgical management of PAD and aortic disease in the setting of large registry studies and clinical trials. Furthermore, he is involved in several committees that aim to improve the treatment of vascular disease and foster international collaboration, such as the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines steering committee and the European Vascular Research Collaborative (EVRC). Additionally, he is involved in the editorial boards of the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (EJVES), the EJVES Vascular Forum, and Annals of Vascular Surgery.

CDT: What role does academic writing play in science?

Dr. Teraa: Academic writing is a means to enable the exchange of scientific knowledge in a quickly developing field such as vascular and endovascular surgery. Innovations and technical advances evolve quickly and scientific journals are indispensable in order to keep up with these developments. Furthermore, it plays an important role in giving young researchers a chance to display their work, share ideas and experiences with peers, and stimulate (international) collaborations.

CDT: Can you share tips on selecting the appropriate evidence for synthesis and analysis?

Dr. Teraa: Even when performing original research, it is essential to have good knowledge of the research within a certain field, also to identify potential gaps in scientific knowledge. In my roles in EJVES and the ESVS guidelines steering committee, evidence synthesis is a relevant topic and key in providing evidence-based treatment recommendations in guidelines. A frequent issue encountered in evidence synthesis is the lack of adequate and homogeneous definitions of outcomes or standardization of therapeutic interventions. This underlines the importance of defining reporting standards in (vascular) surgical research, such as those recently published in EJVES. Adhering to such reporting standards (or ones alike) supports future evidence synthesis. Furthermore, it is relevant when evidence is systematically reported or meta-analyzed that you adhere to well-accepted methods, such as PRISMA guidelines and GRADE methodology, use appropriate quality assessment instruments, and ideally, preregister a project in, for instance, a registry like PROSPERO.

CDT: Data sharing has been prevalent in scientific writing in recent years. Do you think it is crucial for authors to share their research data?

Dr. Teraa: As a clinical researcher, you have the obligation, especially in clinical research, to use research data as optimally and efficiently as possible. Research is often (partially) funded by public money and you therefore not only have an obligation towards patients participating in research but also towards society and the scientific community. On the other hand, I think a researcher should be appropriately acknowledged for his or her contribution to science and medical knowledge. But if the latter is adequately guaranteed, re-use of research data will spark further collaboration, speed-up clinical developments, and support insights into pathology, risk identification, and optimization of therapeutic strategies. In the end, researchers and medical science, but above all patients will benefit from sharing of data. It should be easier to share pseudonymized data between centers and countries, and existing hurdles should be reduced. Researchers generally aim to conduct scientific research according to good clinical practice guidelines.

(by Sasa Zhu, Brad Li)

Dexter Yak Seng Chan

Dexter Chan is a General and Vascular Surgeon at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore. With 28 publications, his research areas focus on peripheral vascular disease and diabetic limb salvage. He has also published in the impact of venous diseases and dialysis access salvage. He is currently undertaking a fellowship at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong.

In Dr. Chan’s opinion, an author should have a keen interest in real-world problems related to one’s practice and should always be on the lookout for practical and innovative solutions to issues. To him, academic writing requires the ability to deliver a consistent and methodical argument when answering a clinical question. Reading widely is a prerequisite in preparation as an author for it allows one to shape his/her writing style that is deliverable to the scientific audience. This also allows one to ensure that what one writes will be sensible and complete. Then, anything written needs to be checked multiple times and with multiple sources to ensure that any piece is thorough and correct. Next, he believes the writings need to be succinct and pertinent. Being concise keeps the reader’s attention and ensures that the article stays on course. Finally, one needs to be ever critical of his/her work to continuously improve and to be open to the feedback of others. He thinks that one should never be afraid of failures and keep writing to progress.

Besides reading widely to first understand what the inherent biases are already present in one’s work, Dr. Chan points out that one needs to repeatedly critique one’s work. As no research is fully perfect, in preparation of the discussion, one needs to consider where research may have fallen short, leading to a biased outcome or summary. Getting co-authors or even colleagues to read through can provide an objective lens to one’s writing. This is where teamwork comes into play. Finally, structuring the discussion to account for differing results and opinions may present a more balanced and holistic writing.

“There are several unanswered scientific questions. Every now and then, an opportunity arises for me to answer one of these questions, either because new research has been carried out, or a new technology addresses a specific need. These moments spur me to write. I derive joy whenever I am able to make a small contribution to the greater community. In addition, I do have a keen interest in engaging with fellow like-minded researchers. Through collaboration, I hope we can help improve clinical practice,” says Dr. Chan.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Takashi Nagasaka

Takashi Nagasaka, MD, PhD, currently works as an Assistant Professor at Gunma University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Japan. In 2022, he served as a Visiting Postdoctoral Scientist at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, where he conducted extensive research on structural heart disease, resulting in multiple publications. His specialties include coronary intervention and interventions for structural heart disease (SHD). Additionally, he has expertise in advanced imaging techniques, especially CT-based assessments for procedures such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER), and transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR), which form the current focus of his research. Connect with Dr. Nagasaka on X @nagasakat222.

Dr. Nagasaka regards a good academic paper as one that addresses a clear, relevant research question through rigorous methodology, provides insightful analysis supported by solid evidence, and communicates its findings in a concise and understandable manner. It should offer originality, contributing meaningfully to existing knowledge, and have implications that can influence clinical practice or guide future research directions. Most importantly, a good paper should spark intellectual excitement—it should inspire curiosity and motivate further exploration.

The most commonly encountered difficulties in academic writing, in Dr. Nagasaka’s view, include formulating a clear and testable hypothesis, designing rigorous methodologies appropriate for the research question, and accurately interpreting complex statistical analyses. In addition, generating novel ideas and thoughtfully considering how those ideas may contribute to future clinical practice are both essential and particularly challenging aspects of the writing process.

“Academic writing allows me to systematically explore and address clinical questions encountered in daily practice. Writing papers not only helps solve these clinical uncertainties but also continuously encourages me to critically evaluate my diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, ensuring I progress and improve as a clinician,” says Dr. Nagasaka.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Aloke V. Finn

Dr. Aloke V. Finn, currently serves as the President and Chief Scientific Officer of the CVPath Institute, an independent non-profit organization in Gaithersburg, dedicated to the study of cardiovascular diseases. He also serves as a Clinical Professor at the University of Maryland in Baltimore. He directs a basic and translational research laboratory funded by grants from industry, the NIH and other charitable foundations. Dr. Finn is an interventional cardiologist whose primary research interest over the past 15 years has been in the areas of human atherosclerosis as well as mechanisms of cardiac and vascular injury after vascular devices. He obtained his medical degree from Vanderbilt University and did his medical and research training at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA. He has published over 200 peer-reviewed research articles, editorials, and reviews. He has received numerous awards for his research. Connect with Dr. Finn on X and LinkedIn.

According to Dr. Finn, a good academic paper needs to be clearly written, simple to understand and have important and novel insights into whatever the subject matter is. He adds, “Some of the best papers leave the readers asking many more questions about the subject. Obviously, it goes without saying reproducibility and rigor in experimental methods that need to be there as well.”

In Dr. Finn’s opinion, when constructing a paper, authors have to bear in mind the message they are trying to communicate to the audience and whether their data support that message. They should further consider whether the readers can easily understand their main message and why their findings are important to the field.

“I publish in CDT because it is an excellent journal with good readership and reputation,” says Dr. Finn.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Álvaro Gamarra

Dr. Álvaro Luis Gamarra Lobato is a highly trained medical professional with a comprehensive background in cardiology. He completed his undergraduate medical studies at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, where he developed a strong foundation in clinical practice. He completed his residency in cardiology at Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (Madrid), focusing on clinical cardiology and heart failure. He then pursued a Master's in Imaging Diagnosis in Cardiology at Universidad Católica de San Antonio de Murcia, further honing his expertise. Dr. Gamarra has been involved in significant research studies in the field of heart failure and the clinical application of imaging diagnostic techniques in recent years. His recently published literature review aims to make the published knowledge on this topic accessible and highlight areas where further research is needed.

To ensure one’s writing is critical, Dr. Gamarra reckons that it is essential to maintain an analytical approach, evaluating the strengths and limitations of both the existing literature as well as one's own findings. A critical perspective involves presenting evidence in a balanced way, while clearly acknowledging potential biases, methodological constraints, and alternative explanations. It also requires comparing and contrasting different viewpoints and recognizing gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Criticism should be directed not only at the limitations of prior research but also the implications of one’s own findings within the broader context of the field.

Dr. Gamarra also stresses that it is crucial for authors to disclose any potential Conflict of Interests (COIs) transparently. This disclosure ensures that readers can assess the potential for bias in the research, which is important for maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. COIs may influence the interpretation or presentation of findings. In cardiovascular research, where drug trials, medical device testing, and funding sources are often involved, failing to disclose a COI could undermine trust in the results. While a COI does not inherently invalidate the research, it is important to critically examine the data and conclusions with an understanding of the potential influences.

“My motivation for academic writing in the field of cardiology is driven by a deep commitment to improving patient care and advancing scientific knowledge. Whether publishing original research or writing review articles, the primary goal is to provide evidence-based insights that can influence clinical practice, inform treatment strategies, and enhance patient outcomes,” says Dr. Gamarra, “Review articles, in particular, play a crucial role in synthesizing existing knowledge, identifying trends, and highlighting areas that require further investigation, which helps direct the future course of research. Disseminating new findings, as well as consolidating and critiquing existing literature, fosters collaboration among peers, which is essential for refining ideas and strengthening the collective understanding of cardiovascular health. Additionally, the personal fulfillment of knowing that one’s work contributes to shaping medical practice, policy, and the broader scientific discourse is a powerful motivator. Academic writing is also an opportunity to engage in critical thinking, continuous learning, and the pursuit of excellence, all of which are essential for remaining at the forefront of medical science.”

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)

Amélie Paquin

Amélie Paquin is a cardiologist and clinician-scientist in the Division of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation at the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute (Quebec, Canada). She was previously trained in Women's Cardiovascular Health at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute (Ontario, Canada) and at the Barbra Streisand Women's Heart Centre Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute (California, United States). Her research focus is the development of cardiovascular diseases in women and the impact of cardiometabolic health.

In Dr. Paquin’s view, academic writing is essential for knowledge sharing. The distribution of research results helps foster new ideas and consolidate knowledge to move science forward.

Dr. Paquin believes that academic writing can be critical if the writers have an adequate understanding of the current data, being able to contextualize their results within these data, as well as an understanding of the limitations of their methods.

In addition, Dr. Paquin emphasizes that the application for institutional review board (IRB) approval is of utmost importance to ensure protection of research participants as well as animal models. It also ensures that the research process and/or its results do not negatively impact the wider community.

(by Brad Li, Masaki Lo)