In Reply: Dr Stephens claims that I have misrepresented
her book and made factual errors in my review. I did not claim that the book
"lacks" or is devoid of a description or analysis of the Cincinnati radiation
study. What I said was that I "expected a thorough description and analysis
of the Cincinnati study and a balanced presentation of the issues." For instance,
appendix I provides minimal technical information about the study subjects.
Stephens describes the cancers by anatomic site only, without information
about diagnosis and staging. A systematic analysis of informed consent, ie,
what the subjects were told and not told, was not provided. Stephens also
limits the discussion to a selected group of patients; about two thirds of
the study group is not discussed at all.
Mossman KL. The Cincinnati Radiation Tests. JAMA. 2003;289(3):301–302. doi:10.1001/jama.289.3.301-a
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: