Excessively closed science hurts

doi:10.1136/bmj.39520.507025.3A

BMJ 2008;336:629 (22 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39520.507025.3A

Letters

Moving beyond depression

Excessively closed science hurts

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

I would like to add to Lenzer and Brownlee’s reportingof my comments on how excessively closed science can hurt physiciansand patients.¹

Statistician Michael Bracken led the NASCIS 2 and 3 studiesof high dose steroids in acute spinal cord injury.² The NationalInstitute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke conducted a publiccampaign in advance of the scientific publication of NASCIS2 on 17 May 1990. The institute sent a fax on 13 April 1990to some 19 000 emergency room physicians and hospitals, aftera press release had resulted in coverage by the New York Timesand the Chicago Tribune on 31 March 1990, by Science News on7 April 1990, by Newsweek on 9 April 1990.

This led to widespread use of steroids, off label. No applicationfor regulatory approval for this indication was completed, andno agency ever approved it. Surgeons report that methylprednisoloneis administered . . . [Full text of this article]

Fred H. Geisler, director

¹ Illinois Neuro-Spine Center, 2020 Ogden Ave, Suite 335, Aurora, IL 60504

fgeisler@gmail.com