Responses

Download PDFPDF

Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Access to the AXIS tool in full is available here

    Access to the AXIS tool in full is available at this website www.epinet.net

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Publication bias "baked into" conventional systematic review methods
    • Erick H Turner, physician-researcher Oregon Health & Science University

    The method proposed here follows the conventional systematic review approach, which is to begin with a search of the published literature. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that clinical trials are published selectively. Thus the notion that the published literature will provide an accurate and unbiased view of a drug's risk-benefit ratio is no longer tenable. In order to circumnavigate this problem, one must look "upstream" by seeking and working with an inception cohort of clinical trials. (As one example, one sees a quite different estimate of the efficacy of antidepressants medications, depending on whether the cohort is from the published literature or from a regulatory agency (e.g. FDA).*) The term "systematic review" could, and in my opinion should, apply to the "systematic" use of an inception cohort, not an approach based on a selective subset of that cohort.

    * Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252–60. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065779

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.