The Analysis of Clinical Research: Mandatory Submission of Data Sets
Journals Should Have Access to Research Data
Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:273-274.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
CLINICAL eye research used to be reported in numbing detail. As disease patterns emerged in the 19th century, descriptive observation was the main way to link cause and effect. Papers had tables listing hundreds of patients that could take up more space than the article. When Jonathan Hutchinson showed the connection between interstitial keratitis and congenital syphilis in a chapter of his 1863 book, 4 of every 5 pages were devoted to reports and tables of his 102 cases. Most readers probably did nothing more than scan these charts, but were likely impressed by the extent of effort.
Analytical epidemiology entered ophthalmology at the middle of the 20th century, and emphasis changed to significance levels and effect measures. Journals now discourage excessive presentation of data and instead focus on succinct computational summaries. The structured presentation of modern ophthalmology articles makes them easy to read but limits recalculations since raw data . . . [Full Text of this Article] THE POTENTIAL FOR FLAWS IN OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
HOW CAN READERS BE ASSURED THAT ARTICLES HAVE MINIMAL ERRORS?
SHARING KNOWLEDGE WITH INTEGRITY
RELATED ARTICLE
The Analysis of Clinical Research: Mandatory Submission of Data Sets: Journal Editors Should Not Require Complete Data Sets for Independent Scrutiny
Roy W. Beck and Frederick L. Ferris
Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(2):275.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Submission of Data Sets to Journals: What's the Real Issue?
Novack and Crockett
Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:1706-1706.
FULL TEXT
|
