Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Ignore the evidence and keep going wrong
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
We were surprised that in his editorial to our paper Saenger
challenged our conclusions that most patients treated for growth
hormone deficiency do not have this condition, and that controlled
trials should be organised to evaluate the long term effects of growth
hormone in most of the patients currently treated.1
Saenger supports the use of an integrated approach to diagnosing growth
hormone deficiency and the wider use of IGF-1 measurements, as
suggested by the Growth Hormone Research Society. However, his recent
publications, as coauthor or senior author, do not reflect his
plea.
2 3
This contradiction reflects the widespread
contrast between the recommendations in consensus guidelines and
current practice or clinical research protocols.
In the absence of a gold standard, how can growth hormone
deficiency be defined? We propose using long term results of treatment in comparison with spontaneous outcome. The results of our
observational study indicate that most patients