Editorial

Better radiology in the BMJ

BMJ 2008; 336 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39504.640104.80 (Published 20 March 2008)
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;336:628

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

  1. Amy Davis, editorial registrar
  1. 1BMA House, London WC1H 9JR
  1. adavis{at}bmj.com

    Despite improvements already made, we still have more to do

    The BMJ has a history of being self critical. In 1976 we published a review of 62 BMJ research papers, which showed that 32 of them had statistical faults and five had made claims in their abstracts that were not supported by their results.1 These mistakes occurred because at that time statisticians were not commonly involved in research papers, either as authors or peer reviewers.2 To improve the reliability of published research, the BMJ was one of the first medical journals to introduce statistical review of all published research papers, and the role of statisticians in peer review continues to be of interest today.3 We now plan to do the same for radiology, using external advisors and radiologists to guide us …

    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

    BMJ most popular