Responses

Download PDFPDF

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer
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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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

  • Published on:
    Response to the Bee Ping Tehs and Norzahirah Ahmads request from June 24th 2019
    • Marius Goldkuhle, Research associate University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Dear Ms Teh Bee Ping,
    Dear Ms Norzahirah Ahmad,

    Thank you very much for your interest in the article and your valuable feedback on typographical errors and indistinguishable information. We here aim to address the issues outlined in the electronic response from June 24th 2019.

    We thank the attentive authors of the question for their reference to existing typographical errors. Either as the identified errors are only addressing lower decimal values or, in case of (2) a missing value within a percentage, the conclusions of this paper do not change. We agree however, that less attentive readers may oversee the errors; nevertheless, we do not completely agree that it will affect conclusions or decision based on our findings. This is especially visible if the errors are considered in their reported context (for an example please see (2)).

    1) This is correct. An adaption to a total number of 215 would be justified.
    2) Again, a correction of this value to 91.9% in table 1 is justified and we thank the authors of the question for their reference. Even though, we have to acknowledge that an observant reader will infer that 318 of 346 is not resulting in 9.9%.
    3) Thank you very much for this attentive remark. The correct value is 6.92.
    4) Thank you. The “,” is indeed a “.”.
    5) Thank you very much. This is correct.

    "The authors claim that there were Cochrane reviews that included none or one study; (...) The number of in...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    Author of the article
  • Published on:
    Editor's Note

    BMJ Open has received the comments from Bee Ping Teh and Norzahirah Ahmad on this paper. The authors of the paper have been contacted and have been asked to comment on the accuracy of their response.

    We will update the article if necessary.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer
    • Bee Ping Teh, Researcher Institute for Medical Research
    • Other Contributors:
      • Norzahirah Ahmad, Researcher

    We have read with great interest about Goldkuhle et al., ‘A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer’ (BMJ Open; accepted on 12 February 2018; doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020869). Hereby we are writing this electronic responses to address the contents of article in following aspects: typographical errors and indistinguishable information highlighted by the original authors.

    There are five typographical errors found in the article that we would like to draw your attention as these could cause confusion to your many readers. The said errors are presented with snapshot image from the original article.

    1) First paragraph of ‘Characteristics of included SRs’ section, under ‘RESULTS’ section, page 5; a numerical value of ‘67/216’ (at line 15) has to be corrected to ‘67/215’ because the total number of included studies for high-impact journal reviews was only 215 studies instead of 216.

    2) At 'Table 1’, under ‘RESULTS’ section, page 6; a numercal value of '318 (9.9)' has to be corrected to ‘318 (91.9)’ as compared to first paragraph of ‘Content of included SRs’ section, under ‘RESULTS’ section, page 5, line 1. This is because the percentage value of 318 out of 346 is 91.9% (approximate) instead of 9.9.

    3) At 'Results’ section, under ‘ABSTRACT’ section, page 1, line 15; a numerical value of ‘6.52 (range 0-143)’ is different from mean number of citations...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to canc
    • Marius Goldkuhle, Research Assistant Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Dear Dr. Lu,
    Dear Professor Yang,

    many thanks for this very important remark. Indeed, element #6 in the Appendix table 1: " Search strategy for high-impact journals SRs"" should correctly read: "#6 Search (#4 or #5) Filters: Publication date from 2011/01/01 to 2016/05/31”.

    Best regards,

    Marius Goldkuhle

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer
    • Cuncun Lu, Medical master Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    • Other Contributors:
      • Kehu Yang, Professor

    Dear Authors,
    Recently, the work “A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer” [1] was published in BMJ Open, it compared cancer-related systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, we enjoyed it with interest. But we found there was a mistake about #6 in the Appendix table 1: Search strategy for high-impact journals SRs. we cannot find the #7, but it emerged. In our opinion, it should be “#6 Search (#4 or #5) Filters: Publication date from 2011/01/01 to 2016/05/31”. Although this mistake is minor, but it may affect the paper quality and other researchers in the same research field.
    [1] Goldkuhle M, Narayan V M, Weigl A, et al. A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer[J]. Bmj Open, 2018, 8(3):e020869.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.