Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Feature Christmas 2011: Food for Thought

What Three Wise Men have to say about diagnosis

BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7769 (Published 20 December 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d7769

Rapid Response:

Re: What Three Wise Men have to say about diagnosis

Sadly, since I dislike criticism at at time of good-will, this article reflects a trend which is all too common.
It is based on three cases, each of which depend on the diagnostic imaging (MRI and PET scans) and histo-pathology. However none of the authors reports any formal accreditation in diagnostic imaging or pathology, so presumably other clinicians interpreted these investigations for them, yet they are not credited. This represents a discourtesy, to say the least, to these radiologists, pathologists and Nuclear Medicine physicians who would have used their expertise to interpret the investigations.
Unfortunately, they are not unique. Elsewhere in the BMJ, such as the "Minerva" page, it is the exception for the diagnostician to be credited, yet the "highlight" case nearly always is based on imaging or pathology.
Perhaps, as a New Year resolution, the Editor could consider asking authors to credit their colleagues whose clinical expertise made the case report possible.

Competing interests: I have spent over 30 years working in Nuclear Medicine.

23 December 2011
Andrew J W Hilson
Retired Consultant in Nuclear Medicine
Royal Free Hospiral
Pond St London NW3 2QG