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.
Fletcher’s objection to the inclusion of subsets in analysis if they
hadn’t been specified in the research protocol is easily refuted by noting
that the relevant data had indeed been identified as worth while being
collected. This can be construed as regarding the factor in the subset as
a possible confounder, which would undoubtedly have been chosen were a
regression analysis to be done. In a sense, therefore, there is no cherry
picking taking place. If the data set were studied again for new material
then bias would be possible.
“Data mining” is often regarded by statistical purists with much
suspicion. Personally I find nothing wrong with, say, looking at the
features of those well over or under the general mean to gain hints as to
the reasons for these deviations. After all, these were the events that
Claude Bernard found most interesting.
A refutation
Fletcher’s objection to the inclusion of subsets in analysis if they
hadn’t been specified in the research protocol is easily refuted by noting
that the relevant data had indeed been identified as worth while being
collected. This can be construed as regarding the factor in the subset as
a possible confounder, which would undoubtedly have been chosen were a
regression analysis to be done. In a sense, therefore, there is no cherry
picking taking place. If the data set were studied again for new material
then bias would be possible.
“Data mining” is often regarded by statistical purists with much
suspicion. Personally I find nothing wrong with, say, looking at the
features of those well over or under the general mean to gain hints as to
the reasons for these deviations. After all, these were the events that
Claude Bernard found most interesting.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests