BMJ 1995;311:1369 (18 November)

Letters

Authors differ on assessment of flaws in trials

EDITOR,--The review of pediculicides by Robert H Vander Stichele and colleagues seems initially to be a major advance in the analysis of clinical studies in this field.1 Having recently completed a major review of the literature on human lice, however, I wish to comment on this analysis. I agree that most trials are full of faults and should probably never have been published. When I read the authors' analysis, however, I wondered whether they and I had been looking at the same publications. Although I make allowance for some qualification criteria being vague and in some cases clinically irrelevant, the authors have been inconsistent in their application so that two nearly identical protocols are scored differently. I scored the same "top" group of studies, with rather different results (table). 


Reassessment of seven studies found acceptable by Vander Stichele and colleagues: A is Vander Stichele and colleagues' assessment while B is . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Systematic review of clinical efficacy of topical treatments for head lice
Robert H Vander Stichele, Els M Dezeure, and Marc G Bogaert
BMJ 1995 311: 604-608. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ