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 2008;336:628 (22 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39504.640104.80
Despite improvements already made, we still have more to do
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The BMJ has a history of being self critical. In 1976 we published a review of 62 BMJ research papers, which showed that 32 of them had statistical faults and five had made claims in their abstracts that were not supported by their results.1 These mistakes occurred because at that time statisticians were not commonly involved in research papers, either as authors or peer reviewers.2 To improve the reliability of published research, the BMJ was one of the first medical journals to introduce statistical review of all published research papers, and the role of statisticians in peer review continues to be of interest today.3 We now plan to do the same for radiology, using external advisors and radiologists to guide us and improve our content.
Twenty years ago radiology was mainly plain radiographs viewed on light boxes. Now digital technology means that multislice computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Doppler ultrasound,
Amy Davis, editorial registrar
1 BMA House, London WC1H 9JR
adavis@bmj.com
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+