[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 23.23.54.109. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 1985

What Can We Believe?

Author Affiliations

Los Lunas Hospital and Training School PO Box 1269 Los Lunas, NM 87031

Arch Dermatol. 1985;121(11):1391-1393. doi:10.1001/archderm.1985.01660110039010
Abstract

Dr Rete Pegs looks apprehensively at the journals on his reading table: dermatology journals, some "throwaways," and several general medical journals. "Darn! I must get some reading done." He picks up a journal, leafs through it, then returns it to the stack. "Why are they full of so much technical material, clinical trials, surveys, and such? How much statistics should a clinician need to know? How much of this is useful to me? How do I know what to believe?"

For many physicians, this is a familiar scenario. There are not any concise, compelling answers to Dr Pegs' anguished questions; however, a few principles are worth examining that relate to them.

In this issue of the Archives, Bigby et al1 review the reporting of methodologic details in clinical trials published in four dermatology journals. These authors show that clinicians have good reason to be wary about the descriptions,

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×