BMJ  2005;330:145 (15 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7483.145-a

Letter

Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in research

Discussion section helps redress the balance

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Montori et al produce a users' guide to detecting misleading claims in reports of clinical research.¹ In the previous letter Penston raises objections to the proposal to read only the methods and results section and to bypass the discussion section, from a reader's point of view. The implications of this for some authors of clinical research papers is also unnerving.

Every research paper that is produced is imperfect. Authors are usually aware of the bias and pitfalls of their paper, some of which are inevitable. The discussion section gives them an opportunity to address these issues and explain their obligatory position.

Researchers have spent valuable time and resources on the work and are well informed about the methods and results. In contrast, readers who scan the methods and results section can easily overlook important information because critical appraisal of a clinical trial is a truly absorbing and daunting . . . [Full text of this article]

Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN sanuradha@ntlworld.com

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

Relevant Article

Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports

Victor M Montori, Roman Jaeschke, Holger J Schünemann, Mohit Bhandari, Jan L Brozek, P J Devereaux, and Gordon H Guyatt
BMJ 2004 329: 1093-1096. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more>>