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 do actually appreciate the new look of the BMJ and enjoyed reading it but remain slightly confused by the Research Update on P17 , "RCT trumps observation again" .
Using the PICO format, the population in the observational study, seems to be those with a higher intake and Serum levels of Vit D which reduced the RISK of Colorectal neoplasia.
The RCT however seems to prove that Vit D and Calcium make no difference to RECURRENCE to a population with diagnosed adenomas & no known colorectal polyps.
So I remain with my illogical non-scientific bias towards large, observational studies and unconvinced that the RCT has trumped just yet.
Re: Restructured abstracts for research in The BMJ
I do actually appreciate the new look of the BMJ and enjoyed reading it but remain slightly confused by the Research Update on P17 , "RCT trumps observation again" .
Using the PICO format, the population in the observational study, seems to be those with a higher intake and Serum levels of Vit D which reduced the RISK of Colorectal neoplasia.
The RCT however seems to prove that Vit D and Calcium make no difference to RECURRENCE to a population with diagnosed adenomas & no known colorectal polyps.
So I remain with my illogical non-scientific bias towards large, observational studies and unconvinced that the RCT has trumped just yet.
Competing interests: No competing interests