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.
I must apologise for the delay in this response ; I was busy reading the list of 46 authors. I wonder if this is a record for the BMJ for a single page publication?
I remain puzzled why the British Medical Journal has published such an obscure paper in its BRITISH journal. I have seen a severe allopurinol induced rash once in the last 23 years in General Practice, and as the authors point out , the value of the screening test has not been validated in European populations.
I acknowledge that the BMJ is not a parochial publication, and it is desirable to have a spectrum of subjects , but I suspect that there was a better place to publish the paper . The BMJ needs to keep its readership.
Surprisingly ,the journal version of the paper does not indicate the prevalence of the gene in the study population , which rather affects the practical use of the test. It is probably in the on-line version , but I suspect many of us cannot quite justify the time involved in the search.
I have an awful lot of competing interests for my time