We misrepresented on the cover of the issue of 2 August the paper by Michael J Radcliffe and colleagues (Enzyme potentiated desensitisation in treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: double blind randomised controlled study. BMJ 2003;327: 251-4 ). Our heading suggested that desensitisation (of any type) for allergies does not work, whereas the paper by Radcliffe and colleagues referred specifically to enzyme potentiated desensitisation. Traditional desensitisation does in fact work for certain indications (for example, bee and wasp venom anaphylaxis; severe simple, grass pollen hay fever; and severe cat allergy). Unfortunately, we repeated our error in the first sentence of the summary in “This Week in the BMJ.”







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27