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.
In view of the BMJ's new policy of expecting authors to respond to
responses to their papers [1], I am disappointed to see that Jueni et al's
response to the responses to their paper has ignored the question I asked
previously [2]. I pointed out that the intent-to-treat analysis that they
did answers a different question to a per-protocol analysis, and that both
are relevant to different people. Perhaps Jueni et al have no information
on what per-protocol analysis of their data would show, but if so, it
would be nice if that could be confirmed.
This doesn't fill me with confidence that the BMJ's new policy is
being taken very seriously.
What about per-protocol analyses?
In view of the BMJ's new policy of expecting authors to respond to
responses to their papers [1], I am disappointed to see that Jueni et al's
response to the responses to their paper has ignored the question I asked
previously [2]. I pointed out that the intent-to-treat analysis that they
did answers a different question to a per-protocol analysis, and that both
are relevant to different people. Perhaps Jueni et al have no information
on what per-protocol analysis of their data would show, but if so, it
would be nice if that could be confirmed.
This doesn't fill me with confidence that the BMJ's new policy is
being taken very seriously.
1. Godlee F. Spotlights and letters.
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5226.full
2. Jacobs A. Intent to treat vs per protocol analyses.
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4675/reply#bmj_el_241894
Competing interests: As stated in my previous rapid response