Rapid Responses to:

CLINICAL REVIEW: Hesham A Saleh and Stephen R Durham Perennial rhinitis BMJ 2007; 335: 502-507 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Quantification of benefit and harm

Tom Fahey, Falk G   (12 September 2007)

Mot injuste

Hugh de Glanville   (28 September 2007)

Quantification of benefit and harm 12 September 2007
Tom Fahey, Professor of General Practice & Family Medicine Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Medical School, Falk G Send response to journal: Re: Quantification of benefit and harm	Dear Sir/Madam, The review by Saleh and Durham gives a useful overview of the diagnosis and treatment of Perennial Rhinitis. However, in their summary box they state that medical treatments are “usually highly effective”. In Table 2 they do not provide clinically useful summaries of treatment effect- either in relative or absolute terms.[1] Also, it is not clear whether the efficacy of these medical treatments is being compared to other active agents or placebo. Neither do they mention potential side effects from treatment. Their article would be more clinically useful if they could provide this information. Yours sincerely, Gavin Falk (5th year medical student) Tom Fahey (Professor of General Practice) Reference 1. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995;310:452-454. Competing interests: None declared
Mot injuste 28 September 2007
Hugh de Glanville, Retired Weybridge, Surrey KT13 9EQ Send response to journal: Re: Mot injuste	To describe topical applications to the conjunctiva as 'intraocular', as in Table 2 in this article, is stretching the use of the word a little far. Competing interests: None declared