This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Letters 


Advertisement: Preregister now for the Medicine 2.0 Congress



Article Thumbnail
Members can download this full article for Adobe PDF Format.
Membership provides unlimited access to all PDF files.
Or, ask your department head to become an institutional member.

For tax purposes please select your country and if applicable state/province of residence:
Buy Now (Pay-per-download for non-members):
Download Price (USD): $22.00

Letter

"Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - Peer Review and Evidence-Based Medicine: Author's Reply

Gunther Eysenbach, MD, MPH

Corresponding Author:

Gunther Eysenbach, MD, MPH

Centre for Global eHealth Innovation
University of Toronto and University Health Network
190 Elizabeth Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2C4
Canada
Phone: +1 416 340 4800 ext 6427
Fax: +1 416 340 3595
Email:

Related Articles:

Comment on: Eysenbach G, Kummervold PE. "Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - The Story of a Cochrane Disaster. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(2) p. e21 http://www.jmir.org/2005/2/e21/

Comment on: Fogel J. "Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - Peer Review and Evidence-Based Medicine. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(2) p. e38 http://www.jmir.org/2005/2/e38/


(J Med Internet Res 2005;7(4):e39)
doi:10.2196/jmir.7.4.e39



Author's Response

Fogel's suggestion of a grading system according to the level of peer review (reminiscent of grading systems for "level of evidence" of primary studies) is interesting, but further study is required to determine to what degree the proposed ratings actually correlate with quality or peer review rigor. My suggestion [1] was to routinely invite all authors of the primary studies to comment on a draft of the systematic review. They actually do not have to peer review the entire paper in the sense of having to write a full referee report, they just should have access to the review before its actual publication to ensure that the authors did not make any major extraction errors (such as in the reported case) or misinterpret any of the original studies (as this would be most easily spotted by the authors of the primary studies). Because authors of systematic reviews often contact the authors of the primary studies anyway (to inquire about nonpublished data or ask other questions), this could be done relatively easily and routinely, in particular, if preprint servers are used, which in other disciplines are common but are underused in medicine.


Reference

  1. Eysenbach G, Kummervold PE. "Is cybermedicine killing you?" - the story of a Cochrane disaster. J Med Internet Res 2005 Jun 30;7(2):e21 [FREE Full text] [Medline] [CrossRef]

Edited by G. Eysenbach; This is a non-peer-reviewed article. submitted 18.07.05; accepted 18.07.05; published 28.07.05

Please cite as:
Eysenbach G
"Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - Peer Review and Evidence-Based Medicine: Author's Reply
J Med Internet Res 2005;7(4):e39
URL: http://www.jmir.org/2005/4/e39/
doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.4.e39
PMID: 16236691

Export Metadata:
END, compatible with Endnote
BibTeX, compatible with BibDesk, LaTeX
RIS, compatible with RefMan, Procite, Endnote, RefWorks

Add this article to your Mendeley library
Add this article to your CiteULike library



Copyright

© Gunther Eysenbach. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 28.7.2005. Except where otherwise noted, articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, including full bibliographic details and the URL (see "please cite as" above), and this statement is included.