This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
AlperBrian SReview of Online Evidence-based Practice Point-of-Care Information Summary Providers: Response by the Publisher of DynaMedJ Med Internet Res20100909123e39
We are pleased that the publisher of DynaMed clarified his evidence-based methodology in response to our review. We stress again how good reporting is a prerequisite for transparency. This lesson comes from the reporting of research findings but its extension to the development of information sources should be considered.
We thank Dr. Alper for his comment in response to our review [1], which gives us the opportunity to stress again how essential good reporting is for transparency. This lesson comes from the reporting of research findings, but its extension to the development of information sources should be considered.
Methodologic quality is closely intertwined with the quality of reporting [2]. Lack of details on how research (or in this case: editorial processes) is conducted leads users to assume that the quality was inadequate, unless information to the contrary is provided (the “guilty until proven innocent” approach) [3]. This is often justified because faulty reporting generally reflects faulty methods [4, 5].
We appreciate that the editor of DynaMed (which is a “blockbuster” in the point-of-care information service market) shows the willingness to improve the explicitness and transparency of their methodology. A clear reference on the freely accessible website pages helps users and purchasers to better understand the value of the product.
It is reassuring when well-known and leading publishers do not take for granted their value. Reputation itself is no guarantee for quality. We hope that other publishers will be equally transparent and responsive to criticism.
None declared
BanziRLiberatiAMoschettiITagliabueLMojaLA review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providersJ Med Internet Res2010123e2610.2196/jmir.128820610379v12i3e26Huwiler-MüntenerKJüniPJunkerCEggerMQuality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic qualityJAMA2002065287212801412038917joc11843JüniPAltmanDGEggerMSystematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ2001077323730342611440947PMC1120670LiberatiAHimelHNChalmersTCA quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancerJ Clin Oncol19860646942513711962SchulzKFChalmersIHayesRJAltmanDGEmpirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA19950212735408127823387