Risk of acute myocardial infarction with NSAIDs in real world use: bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data
BMJ 2017; 357 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1909 (Published 09 May 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;357:j1909- Status
- Comments
- Date
- Original article
- Access document
- 04 April 2016
- First decision
- Access document
- 04 August 2016
- Author response
- Access document
- 03 September 2016
- Response to reviewer 1
- Access document
- 03 September 2016
- Response to reviewer 2
- Access Document
- 03 September 2016
- Response to reviewer 3
- Access Document
- 03 September 2016
- Response to reviewer 4
- Access Document
- 03 September 2016
- Response to reviewer 5
- Access Document
- 03 September 2016
- Response to committee
- Access Document
- 03 September 2016
- First revised article
- Access document
- 03 September 2016
- Second decision
- Access document
- 17 November 2016
- Second response
- Access document
- 27 November 2016
- Second revised article
- Access document
- 27 November 2016
- Third decision
- Access document
- 28 January 2017
- Third response
- Access Document
- 13 February 2017
- Consolidated responses
- Access document
- 13 February 2017
- Ref 1 response
- Access document
- 13 February 2017
- Ref 2 Response
- Access document
- 13 February 2017
- Ref 3 response
- Access document
- 13 February 2017
- Ref 4 response
- Access document
- 13 February 2017
- Third revised article
- Access document
- 13 February 2017
- Fourth decision
- Access document
- 15 March 2017
- Fourth response
- Access document
- 24 March 2017
For research papers The BMJ has fully open peer review. This means that accepted research papers submitted from September 2014 onwards usually have their prepublication history posted alongside them on thebmj.com.
This prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the study protocol (submitting the protocol is mandatory for all clinical trials and encouraged for all other studies at The BMJ), the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers’ comments, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors.
In rare instances we determine after careful consideration that we should not make certain portions of the prepublication record publicly available. For example, in cases of stigmatised illnesses we seek to protect the confidentiality of reviewers who have these illnesses. In other instances there may be legal or regulatory considerations that make it inadvisable or impermissible to make available certain parts of the prepublication record.
In all instances in which we have determined that elements of the prepublication record should not be made publicly available, we expect that authors will respect these decisions and also will not share this information.