Scientific papers and prescriptions should avoid symbols
Hopefully most people will realise the tyographical error in the
criteria for referral to Burns Centres. I am sure the authors mean refer
if OVER 5% body surface area in a child and OVER 10% body surface area in
an adult for partial thickness burns or OVER 1% for full thickness.
The instructions for this response state "Please spell out all
abbreviations in full". Perhaps the BMJ should try and avoid use of the
symbols <and > which many people still misread. Just as when
prescribing, scientific literature should avoid abbreviations and symbols
whenever possible to avoid such errata.
Rapid Response:
Scientific papers and prescriptions should avoid symbols
Hopefully most people will realise the tyographical error in the
criteria for referral to Burns Centres. I am sure the authors mean refer
if OVER 5% body surface area in a child and OVER 10% body surface area in
an adult for partial thickness burns or OVER 1% for full thickness.
The instructions for this response state "Please spell out all
abbreviations in full". Perhaps the BMJ should try and avoid use of the
symbols <and > which many people still misread. Just as when
prescribing, scientific literature should avoid abbreviations and symbols
whenever possible to avoid such errata.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests