Download PDFPDF

Naoxuekang, Xinnaoshutong and Xuesaitong capsules for treating stroke: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial
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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Using Left over Funding in Applied Research in China Is Illegal
    • Adam Lovelace, Student of Clinical Medicine Kenya Medical Training College

    Dear editor,

    As point of Dr. Atif A Baig, this should not be ethical issue but a legal one. After suitable statement of conflict of interest, it is must be no issue. However, Dr. Atif A Baig's conclusion may be obtained without understanding the regulations in China's National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF).

    The newest China's NNSF funded project funding regulation, see, has been taken effect in 2015 and now is running. There are clear rules for usage of left over funding in its article 28. First, the left over funding should be returned to NNSF of China in 2 years after the project has been closed. Second, the left over funding can only be used in direct expenditure of basic research. Moreover, article 37 also said that misappropriation of funding is illegal.

    As common sense of scientific research, there are many differences between basic research and applied research, see 1953's annual report of National Science Foundation of US, In China, the definition of basic research is similar, see

    The content of e015983 has cla...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    I have noticed issues similar to Yuzhen Li and e-mailed to BMJ Open at Nov. 28th, 2017.
  • Published on:
    Role of Ethical and Legal Funding Implications’ from Funding Agencies
    • Atif A Baig, Medical Researcher Faculty of Medicine. Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia

    Dear Editor of BMJ.

    I was reading it all and I assume that many times the issues can’t be ethical but are still legal. Being a neutral moiety, I assume just based on a fact to get justification from author or anyone sending a response is not enough for such serious ethical concerns. There is a serious need to look into the legal implications of use of funding. As per usual practice, the report of all grants are submitted to the funding bodies and if the “authors” have explained and mentioned the use of this all funding or “left over funding” in specific time to be used later as per rules and regulations, there must be no issue as far as no “conflict of interest “ is there between the authors and the funding agency. Seems it’s a very minor issue but for me it’s a new issue of its type and thank you for a very positive attitude from BMJ Open editor for facilitating science and honesty not in science but the concern minor issues.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Note from the Editor in reference to response from Yuzhen Li

    The editorial team of BMJ Open are currently investigating the issues raised by Yuzhen Li in response to this article.

    We have asked the authors to respond to the points raised and will investigate the case in line with the principles of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE).

    Conflict of Interest:
    I am the Editor of BMJ Open.
  • Published on:
    The fund supports of article e015983 and ChiCTR-IOR-1701039 result in ethical issues and academic misconducts.
    • Yuzhen Li, Pharmacy manager

    Dear editorial board of BMJ Open,

    In article e015983,, and registration information,, of its RCT, it was claimed that this RCT, ChiCTR-IOR-1701039, is running and funded by 3 projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China, namely 81202849, 30600834 and 81603659.

    However, none of these three projects could fund this RCT. The first project has been closed in 2015, see The second project also has been closed in 2009, see But the RCT in article e015983 is running from 2017-1-1 to 2018-1-1. Time difference results in that the first 2 projects were impossible to fund this RCT.

    The third project is only one project listed which could fund this RCT because it is to be implemented from 2016 to 2018. But content of project 81603659 is prevention and treatment of cognitive impairment in epileptic rats, not a human RCT. Although the content of project 81603659 is still not revealed, this fact can be confirmed on web site of National Natural Science Foundation of China,...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    Several of the drugs mentioned in the article are sold in our pharmacy, I am not sure whether this is a conflict of interest.