PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11875838

[Double-blind peer review].

Tamás Fenyvesi
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The peer review process in medical sciences is much debated. The method is not yet evidence based. Who are the reviewers and how do they perform? They are "independent" experts. As such they are bound to be involved in research similar to that outlined in the manuscript. Very often they are contestant in the same race. That is why the author consider the double blind method, where the author is blinded and the reviewer masked from each other's identity, the best choice. Nevertheless in very many scientific journals of high quality and envied impact factors do not blind the identity of the authors. Science is a race for fame, self accomplishment and also a means to get grants for pursuing the scientific research. Only success is able to provide resources for expensive scientific research. There is no fail-safe method against bias in grant giving and editorial process. In the tidal wave of electronic information it is mandatory to help in differentiating between signal and noise in science. Peer review is the best method to protect readers from the trash of uncontrolled publications in medical science.

Explore related subjects

Double-Blind MethodHumansHungaryJournalism, MedicalPeer Review, ResearchPublishingEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tamás Fenyvesi. 2002-02-03. [Double-blind peer review].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11875838/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Redefining response in overactive bladder syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three potential definitions of treatment response in overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome, based on the International Continence Society (ICS) definition of OAB, using pooled data from two large clinical trials of the antimuscarinic agent solifenacin succinate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As the ICS definition of OAB does not rely on urodynamic observations for a diagnosis, the use of composite endpoints, such as in the definitions examined here, might provide a more relevant measure of patient benefits. Each definition was tested to assess the impact of pharmacotherapy, comparing treatment response rates based on composite endpoints. Responder definitions were validated based on the impact on quality of life (QoL). Pooled data from two 12-week multinational, multicentre, double-blind randomized studies of solifenacin, a once-daily oral antimuscarinic for treating OAB symptoms, were used for this analysis. Based on the symptom data from these studies (episodes of urgency, incontinence, nocturia and voiding frequency per 24 h), response was defined as being: (i) a reduction by half or more in all baseline symptoms; (ii) a reduction by half or more in urgency and at least one other symptom; or (iii) resolution of urgency episodes and at least one other symptom. Health-related QoL changes were recorded using the King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). RESULTS: Solifenacin at 5 mg or 10 mg once daily resulted in significantly higher response rates than with placebo, irrespective of the definition of a responder (P < or = 0.001). When assessing the most challenging definition of response (resolution of urgency and at least one other symptom), solifenacin at 5 mg and 10 mg resulted in 20% and 25% of patients, respectively, meeting the response criteria, vs 12% of placebo-treated patients (P < or = 0.001 for both solifenacin doses). For all three definitions of response, responders showed greater improvements in all KHQ domains than did nonresponders, and the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The two strictest definitions of response (halving or more in all baseline symptoms or resolution of urgency and more than one other symptom) appeared to capture QoL changes most effectively. Establishing the most appropriate definition to assess treatment-related changes in OAB will require further investigation, but it is clear from this analysis that composite clinical endpoints, based on the ICS definition of OAB, are a valid approach for assessing the effect of treatments for OAB.

Double-Blind Method↗