• Publications
  • Influence
Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale.
TLDR
This guideline report presents the panel’s recommendations with respect to screening and surveillance in people at average risk for CRC and those at increased risk because of a family history of CRC or genetic syndromes or a personal history of adenomatous polyps, inflammatory bowel disease, or curative-intent resection of CRC.
Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent
Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare
Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
TLDR
Neither blinding reviewers to the authors and origin of the paper nor requiring them to sign their reports had any effect on rate of detection of errors, and such measures are unlikely to improve the quality of peer review reports.
Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead
TLDR
An increased proportion of callers are under 25 years old, started smoking at 15 years old or older, and/or have smoked for less than 10 years, which shows notable changes in the characteristics of new Quitline callers between 2001 and 2005.
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial
TLDR
Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
TLDR
The characteristics of reviewers studied did not identify those who performed high-quality reviews, and reviewers might be advised that spending longer than 3 hours on a review on average did not appear to increase review quality as rated by editors and authors.
Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.
TLDR
I look forward to a time when open commentary and review replace the current, flawed system of closed prepublication peer review and its false reassurances about the reliability of what is published.
What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
Abstract Objective To analyse data from a trial and report the frequencies with which major and minor errors are detected at a general medical journal, the types of errors missed and the impact of
Clinical trial data for all drugs in current use
  • F. Godlee
  • Medicine
    BMJ : British Medical Journal
  • 29 October 2012
TLDR
This document would like to be made available for independent scrutiny on a case-by-case basis and should be able to be reviewed by a panel of experts.
Testing common sense
  • F. Godlee
  • Medicine
    BMJ : British Medical Journal
  • 24 May 2007
TLDR
Two research papers examine the role of community pharmacists in primary care and found that pharmacists' advice didn't have much impact on behaviour or health outcomes and may even have made things worse.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...