I am grateful for Schriger and Altman raising the issue of post
publication review1. Some years ago a high impact specialty journal
published the results of an RCT that I felt was flawed in its methodology
and data interpretation. I submitted a letter with my comments through the
approved channel. Neither the receipt of the original letter nor a follow
up enquiry were acknowledged. My letter was never published. A few months
later a further paper based on the same RCT was published in a lower
impact, more specialist journal. My comment letter was published this time
but the authors did not respond. When the results of the study were used
to market the technology which appeared more effective, I again questioned
the results with a local sales representative of the manufacturer, who
said he would make enquiries. I heard nothing. The manufacturer in
question is a large international company which not only sponsored the
trial but also is a major financial backer of the annual conference of the
professional society that publishes the first journal I wrote to.
As a clinical researcher, systematic reviewer and guideline developer I
recognise the value of post publication criticism and debate. Could a
condition of publication be an obligation to respond to criticism?
1.Schriger DL and Altman DG. Inadequate post-publication review of
medical research. BMJ 2010;341:c3803
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
24 August 2010
FERGUS R MACBETH
DIrector of Centre for Clinical Practice
London WC1V 6 NA
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 71 High Holborn,
Rapid Response:
Post publication review
I am grateful for Schriger and Altman raising the issue of post
publication review1. Some years ago a high impact specialty journal
published the results of an RCT that I felt was flawed in its methodology
and data interpretation. I submitted a letter with my comments through the
approved channel. Neither the receipt of the original letter nor a follow
up enquiry were acknowledged. My letter was never published. A few months
later a further paper based on the same RCT was published in a lower
impact, more specialist journal. My comment letter was published this time
but the authors did not respond. When the results of the study were used
to market the technology which appeared more effective, I again questioned
the results with a local sales representative of the manufacturer, who
said he would make enquiries. I heard nothing. The manufacturer in
question is a large international company which not only sponsored the
trial but also is a major financial backer of the annual conference of the
professional society that publishes the first journal I wrote to.
As a clinical researcher, systematic reviewer and guideline developer I
recognise the value of post publication criticism and debate. Could a
condition of publication be an obligation to respond to criticism?
1.Schriger DL and Altman DG. Inadequate post-publication review of
medical research. BMJ 2010;341:c3803
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests