Search Annals: Advanced search

Rapid Responses to:

Academia and Clinic: Christine Laine, Steven N. Goodman, Michael E. Griswold, and Harold C. Sox Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 450-453 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

Send comment/rapid response letter

Electronic letters published:

Additionally turn reviewers into prepublication peer critical appraisers

Anthony Lwegaba, Arthur Phillips   (28 March 2007)

Medical ethics begins with the educator

Kenneth A Hoekstra   (22 March 2007)

Additionally turn reviewers into prepublication peer critical appraisers 28 March 2007
Anthony Lwegaba, MB,ChB, DipPH, MMedPH Lecturer, University of West Indies, SCMR, Barbados, Arthur Phillips Send rapid response to journal: Re: Additionally turn reviewers into prepublication peer critical appraisers lwegaba{at}lycos.com Anthony Lwegaba, et al.	Journals begin each year by thanking what are referred as “peer reviewers”. A closer look at the terminology used to describe various roles of health researchers is needed to address and cope up with the emerging changes in research methods and research emphasis. Descriptors that may be assigned to such temporary roles in published studies for example: trialist or interventionist (clinical or community based), narrative reviewer, systematic reviewer, meta-analyst, economic analyst, etc. Today, reviews and reviewers have risen to prominence mainly because they conveniently summarize findings from many studies on a topic and thus may cumulatively and conclusively point to the direction of evidence. In this regard, the emerging notion is a reviewer is a researcher who scrutinizes past, current and emerging knowledge, practice, technology and prepares a report on a topic or question of interest through gathering and assessing the contribution of several studies. In which case, the individuals who assist the journals to scrutinize the validity of the content of a submitted paper and its suitability for publication are not reviewers but are prepublication peer critical appraisers. Renamed and re-tooled with techniques from EBM, etc, peer critical appraisers may add more prepublication value to both the authors and the journal than current peer reviewers. 1. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford. www.cebm.net/catmaker.as/e#download 2. EPIQ, Auckland. CATs checklists. www.epiq.co.nz Conflict of Interest: None declared
Medical ethics begins with the educator 22 March 2007
Kenneth A Hoekstra, Ph.D., IRB Chair Western States Chiropractic College Send rapid response to journal: Re: Medical ethics begins with the educator khoekstra{at}wschiro.edu Kenneth A Hoekstra	Dear Editor, In a recent article published by Laine et al. (1), the authors highlight and review the ethics of practicing good reproducible medicine. I would like further emphasize that where conducting good research may begin at the bench and be applied at the bedside, good medical ethics really begins by setting a good example on the first day of medical school. Those who teach in the medical sciences have an excellent opportunity to educate students about the importance of ethical practice in medicine: clinical, basic and experimental science, and the ethical reporting of research findings (2). Opportunities for change exist at all levels but should have the most profound effects if instilled at the beginning. Perhaps medical science education has fallen short of this? 1. Laine C, Steven N. Goodman SN, Griswold ME, and Sox HC. Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 450-453. 2. Eckles RE, Meslin EM, Gaffney M, Helft PR.Medical ethics education: where are we? Where should we be going? A review. Acad Med. 2005 Dec;80(12):1143-52. Conflict of Interest: None declared