Mark Petticrew brilliantly examines eight common myths about
systematic reviews [1]. It seems that he has forgotten to examine another
myth: medicine based on systematic reviews would be inhuman because it
would be too scientific [2]. To this myth, couldn’t it be answered that in
competent doctors, scientific qualities do not replace, but are associated
with, human qualities? [3]
[1] Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths
and misconceptions BMJ 2001;322:98-101 (13 January).
[2] O'Donnell M. Evidence-based illiteracy: time to rescue "the
literature". Lancet 2000;355:48991.
[3] Watine J, Borgstein J. Evidence-based illiteracy or illiterate
evidence. Lancet 2000;356:684.
Rapid Response:
Inhuman systematic reviews?
Mark Petticrew brilliantly examines eight common myths about
systematic reviews [1]. It seems that he has forgotten to examine another
myth: medicine based on systematic reviews would be inhuman because it
would be too scientific [2]. To this myth, couldn’t it be answered that in
competent doctors, scientific qualities do not replace, but are associated
with, human qualities? [3]
[1] Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths
and misconceptions BMJ 2001;322:98-101 (13 January).
[2] O'Donnell M. Evidence-based illiteracy: time to rescue "the
literature". Lancet 2000;355:48991.
[3] Watine J, Borgstein J. Evidence-based illiteracy or illiterate
evidence. Lancet 2000;356:684.
Competing interests: No competing interests