This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Alfred Soffer, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1978;138(5):687.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

There is a place in current medical literature for provocative clinical observations. In a recent commentary I noted that there are instances when the editor should be privileged to say to authors who report such observations, "Although the final draft of your report contains deficiencies, we agree with you that this information deserves further scrutiny. Therefore, we accept the paper for publication so that it may receive critical review from our entire readership. We ask only that the limitations of your study be clearly identified."¹ This defense of the occasional publication of observations (vs controlled trials) provoked the following comment from Thomas Preston, MD, "Despite knowledge of better scientific techniques and awareness that poorly controlled studies can be misleading, investigations and editors not only persist in publishing unsubstantiated research, but defend the practice with the rationalization that it will promote further research."² Since reported studies set medical standards, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PO Box 776 Park Ridge, IL 60068

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?