 |
 |
I totally agree, I have learned so much from contacting authors and it has the added value of building relationship. It is also good for the author as they can then see how the way they have done the research is seen from another's viewpoint and is helpful to improve the process for the next iteration Best Amy From: Paul Elias <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Paul Elias <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:22 PM To: <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: why did CMAJ publish this study? I think if there is any issue with the publication, then a response to author should be written and allow the author to reply. Gordon Guyatt is not the principle author (but realize his name is offered given his seniority in the EBM field) but I am sure that if someone is moved to reply to author, and he is asked a question (s) for clarification, he will address concerns and questions. Best, Paul E. Alexander --- On Tue, 5/14/13, Susan Fowler <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Susan Fowler <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: why did CMAJ publish this study? > To: [log in to unmask] > Received: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 11:30 AM > > Have you written Gordon Guyatt and asked him? > > -- > Susan Fowler, MLIS > Medical Librarian > > Evidence at Becker: > http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm > > Systematic Reviews Guide: > http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/SystematicReviews > > Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis > 314-362-8092 > [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:28 PM, write words <[log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: >> The CMAJ just published a study on naturopathy. The press release I received >> about the paper said, ³Treatment by naturopathic doctors shows reduction in >> cardiovascular risk factors. Randomized controlled trial.² >> >> The trial showed nothing of the sort. I blogged about this last week: >> >> http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2013/05/09/crappystudy/ >> >> Here's a link to the study itself (Gordon Gyatt is listed as senior author): >> http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2013/04/29/cmaj.120567 >> >> The CMAJ knew that the study was useless. From an editorial that accompanied >> the study: >> >> "We can learn nothing new from this trial about supplements or any other >> individual component of care, because the trial was not designed to allow >> their evaluation." >> http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2013/04/29/cmaj.130614.full.pdf >> >> Is there something I'm missing here? Does a study that's not designed to >> measure anything have some use I'm overlooking? >> >> Best, >> Christie >> >> Christie Aschwanden >> Email: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> >> Website: www.christieaschwanden.com <http://www.christieaschwanden.com> >> Blog: www.lastwordonnothing.com/category/christie/ >> <http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/category/christie/> >> Twitter: @cragcrest >> >> > > > > > >