Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeSmithereens are better than no Smith at all.
Posted by plosmedicine on 30 Mar 2009 at 23:42 GMT
Author: David Sackett
Position: Co-CEO
Institution: HARLOT plc
E-mail: sackett@bmts.com
Submitted Date: May 18, 2005
Published Date: May 19, 2005
This comment was originally posted as a “Reader Response” on the publication date indicated above. All Reader Responses are now available as comments.
It was grand to see Richard Smith in full-flight again, a raptor this time, relegating the RCTs he previously championed in the BMJ to the ether, to be replaced by printed "commentaries." In doing so, he laid three eggs. First, he shoved systematic reviews and meta-analyses, surely the least biased summaries of efficacy, out of the nest before he took off. Second, the canaries who write commentaries often live in gilded cages provided by the drug industry, and printing their pronouncements would make matters worse. Finally, the fledglings who conduct non-drug health care trials, especially in low and middle income countries, shouldn't have their careers stunted by not being able to publish their work in the paper journals.