Donald Stanley, The Cochrane Collaboration: Haem. Malig. Grp.
5 August 2003
Perhaps it is less easy to read EBM articles on the BMJ website because these articles require a better introduction to the contents e.g. 'what you know, what we have added' to be placed in the introductory section.
The level of interest i.e. the number of hits, does not reflect the value of the articles v. the editorial comments. Obviously it is easy to read well written editorials in the first person rather than third person EBM articles; likewise the number of hits may reflect skimming rather than reading. The 'hit' concept is overdone.
We all agree too much is published and hope that editorials will draw readers to rather than act as surrogates for the EBM article and perhaps editorial writers should not try to digest too much; in fact it may be better to write pros and cons rather than judgemental commentary; and the pros and cons ought to be structured.
EBM Difficult to read
5 August 2003
Perhaps it is less easy to read EBM articles on the BMJ website because these articles require a better introduction to the contents e.g. 'what you know, what we have added' to be placed in the introductory section.
The level of interest i.e. the number of hits, does not reflect the value of the articles v. the editorial comments. Obviously it is easy to read well written editorials in the first person rather than third person EBM articles; likewise the number of hits may reflect skimming rather than reading. The 'hit' concept is overdone.
We all agree too much is published and hope that editorials will draw readers to rather than act as surrogates for the EBM article and perhaps editorial writers should not try to digest too much; in fact it may be better to write pros and cons rather than judgemental commentary; and the pros and cons ought to be structured.
Competing interests
None