Score: 2
'Most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense'
Former editor of BMJ Richard Smith says
The peer review process – long considered the gold standard of quality scientific research – is a “sacred cow” that should be slaughtered. He also says 'Most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense'
Dr Trish Groves, the current head of research at BMJ said that, while peer review wasn’t perfect, it was “still the best way to help research funders, conference organisers, and journal editors decide which studies to support and disseminate and to help readers, the public, patients, and healthcare providers decide what evidence to use in decision making.”
I agree with Richard Smith. I disagree with Trish Groves.
Richard says 'wrong or nonsense' Trish says 'not perfect'. So it is obvious that there is serious disagreement between them.
What do you think? Whom do you agree with? What alternative method would you prefer?
Score: 0
Re: 'Most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense'
I endorse the valued views of Richard Smith, just taking the example of doc2doc thread-----------MRCPsych Question of the Day from OnExamination: Which antidepressant to use?
A 64-year-old lady with a moderate depressive illness currently treated with an SSRI presents with increasing fatigue. Her plasma sodium is found to be 122 mmol/L.
Which of the following antidepressants would be preferable in this context?
Agomelatine
Fluoxetine
Mirtazapine
Trimipramine
Venlafaxine
The correct answer is Agomelatine
1----The diagnosis is of moderate depression while Agomelatine is indicated for major depressive illness. Moreover we have standard options to replace the deficient plasma sodium levels.
2----The efficacy of Agomelatine has not been established in aged patients.
3----The follow up protocol (repeated liver function tests) is not convenient for the patients.
No comments:
Post a Comment