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.
BMJ 2004;328 (12 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7453.0-g
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Now hear this. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are better than opioids for relieving renal colic (p 1401). Now hear another thing. Enteral nutrition produces a quicker recovery from acute pancreatitis than parentral nutrition (p 1407). And another two. Epidural analgesia does not increase risk of caesarean section (p 1410), nor does H pylori eradication have any effect on heartburn or reflux (p 1417). But can you believe what you hear?
A study recently published on Biomedcentral (www.biomedcentral.com) found statistical inconsistencies in 38% of papers in Nature and 25% in the BMJ. Emili Garcia-Berthou and Carles Alcaraz examined a selection of manuscripts published in 2001 and concluded that these errors were "probably mostly due to rounding, transcription, or type-setting." Their verdict is that statistical practice is poor and that "quality of papers should be more controlled and valued." What isn't clear
Kamran Abbasi, deputy editor
kabbasi@bmj.com
Read all Rapid Responses