Like many other contributors, I found the original article by Tze-Wey
Loong
stimulating (surely a rare attribute in any piece on medical statistics)
in terms
of its visual impact; however, frustrating in terms of its inaccuracies.
As it currently stands, I have to provide a list of caveats to my students
and
colleagues when suggesting that they read it.
There is great utility in producing a new version, minus acknowledged
errors
but ideally incorporating the various excellent suggestions for
improvement
received from clinicians and statisticians.
I positively predict that such an update would be sensitively
received!
Rapid Response:
BMJ 2003; 327: 716-719: update eagerly awaited...
Like many other contributors, I found the original article by Tze-Wey
Loong
stimulating (surely a rare attribute in any piece on medical statistics)
in terms
of its visual impact; however, frustrating in terms of its inaccuracies.
As it currently stands, I have to provide a list of caveats to my students
and
colleagues when suggesting that they read it.
There is great utility in producing a new version, minus acknowledged
errors
but ideally incorporating the various excellent suggestions for
improvement
received from clinicians and statisticians.
I positively predict that such an update would be sensitively
received!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests