Letter

Interpretation of randomised trials is indeed open to debate

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.752-b (Published 25 September 2003)
Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:752.3

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Philipp Conradi, full time principal in general practice (pconradi@hotmail.com),
  2. David Taylor, full time principal in general practice
  1. Maypole Health Centre, Birmingham B14 5DH
  2. Woodland Road Surgery, Birmingham B31 2HZ

    EDITOR–McCormack and Greenhalgh once argued that the interpretation of randomised controlled trials is open to debate.1 A recent BMJ news item featuring an overly favourable comment on the diabetes subtrial of the heart protection study illustrates this perfectly.2–4 We question the study's relevance to general practice …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    Read related article

    See previous polls

    BMJ most popular