Recent rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included as edited readers' letters in the weekly print issue of the BMJ, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window.
Displaying 1-1 out of 1 published
In educational articles aimed at very specialised statistical issues, the choice of a clear example is a crucial point to help readers understand the main message conveyed by the paper.
In the article by Sterne et al. [1], understanding Figure 2 is essential, but it is unclear why three subgroups of studies (subgroups 1, 2 and 3) are proposed to interpret the results of the meta-analysis taken as an example, whereas one could think that two subgroups are enough (subgroups 1 and 2 pooled together vs. subgroup 3).
References
1. Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d4002
Competing interests: None declared
Lab. of Pharmacoeconomics, c/o Area Vasta Centro Toscana, 50100 Firenze, ITALY








Re: Study proposes antibiotics as possible new treatment for some types of chronic low back pain
Published 20 May 2013
Obstructive sleep apnoea in adults : a simple non-invasive, novel, innovative and painless "MAINPURI TECHNIQUE" for its effective management
Published 20 May 2013
Re: Minimal access surgery compared with medical management for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: five year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial (REFLUX)
Published 20 May 2013
Re: Good medicine: homeopathy
Published 20 May 2013