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 2003;327:503 (30 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7413.503
EditorThe questions raised about the validity of the data reported by Enstrom and Kabat call into question the adequacy of the peer and editorial review of the paper at the BMJ.1 Apparently no one with special expertise in research on the health effects of passive smoking was involved in the review of this paper. In an area as complex as thisto which massive reports have been devoted2 3one or more persons with epidemiological expertise and an extensive knowledge of the literature on this subject should have been involved in the review of this paper. The obligation to find such a reviewer is heightened when one considers the authors' conflicts of interest and the fact that the paper challenges a huge body of evidence in an area of enormous public health importance.
The BMJ's press release for this paper looks as if it was written by the tobacco industry. It refers to the "already controversial debate on the health impact of passive smoking" and mostly parrots the views of Enstrom and Kabat. In its eight paragraphs, the release allocates three words to the study's limitations. The coup de grâce is that the release does not mention the authors' conflicts of interest. This problem is not unique to the BMJ. An analysis of press releases issued by seven medical journals (including the BMJ) included 23 studies that were industry funded; only 22% of the corresponding press releases revealed the source of funding.4
Ronald M Davis, director
Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, One Ford Place, 5C, Detroit, MI 48202-3450, USA rdavis1{at}hfhs.org
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+