Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I applaud Glaxo Wellcome's commitment to promote evidence-based
medicine, by deciding to publish on its website all protocols and results
from clinical trials. This will indeed make it easier for independent
researchers to undertake systematic reviews of trials. It will also help
to improve standards of investigation, and communication about research
being done.
It is good to see Glaxo-Wellcome taking a lead in disclosure, though
its commitment "to work in partnership with researchers, healthcare
providers, and governments" would be even more welcome if consumers were
partners too.
When this new Glaxo-Wellcome system is up and running, there is
another, obviously important and useful step the company could take. This
would be to publish the names of all the investigators involved in
developing protocols and running trials. On the face of it, this might
seem a very sensitive issue, yet it is precisely this that makes the case
for disclosure seem so strong.
The issue is sensitive because it touches on the extent of company
influence in non-commercial sectors, and on possible conflicts of interest
and commitment by independent researchers. But this is the very reason for
disclosure - to give evidence there is nothing to hide. In the long run,
disclosure would earn both investigators and the company an indispensable
element of public trust. In the meantime, other companies would do well to
follow this Glaxo Wellcome lead.
Good news from Glaxo Wellcome
I applaud Glaxo Wellcome's commitment to promote evidence-based
medicine, by deciding to publish on its website all protocols and results
from clinical trials. This will indeed make it easier for independent
researchers to undertake systematic reviews of trials. It will also help
to improve standards of investigation, and communication about research
being done.
It is good to see Glaxo-Wellcome taking a lead in disclosure, though
its commitment "to work in partnership with researchers, healthcare
providers, and governments" would be even more welcome if consumers were
partners too.
When this new Glaxo-Wellcome system is up and running, there is
another, obviously important and useful step the company could take. This
would be to publish the names of all the investigators involved in
developing protocols and running trials. On the face of it, this might
seem a very sensitive issue, yet it is precisely this that makes the case
for disclosure seem so strong.
The issue is sensitive because it touches on the extent of company
influence in non-commercial sectors, and on possible conflicts of interest
and commitment by independent researchers. But this is the very reason for
disclosure - to give evidence there is nothing to hide. In the long run,
disclosure would earn both investigators and the company an indispensable
element of public trust. In the meantime, other companies would do well to
follow this Glaxo Wellcome lead.
Competing interests: No competing interests