To the Editor.
—The Wall Street Journal's "Heard on the Street" column appears to have been usurped in the June 1988 issue of the Archives. However, the high standards normally required for acceptance by both publications do not seem to be met by two letters.1,2The photographs used in the first letter1 were provided by the manufacturer. These are the same photographs that appear in a promotional brochure prepared by the manufacturer. Such a source is normally considered suspect and unacceptable in a clinical study. An added point—minor but indicative of poor preparation—is that Fig 2 is a reversed printing of the photograph as it appears in the manufacturer's brochure.In their letter, Polack and Goodman1 suggest reliance on subjective responses from patients that apparently were not substantiated by objective observations by the authors.In the second letter, Leibowitz and Capino2 suspect that the formulation
Caccamise WC. Interest in the Report of a New Treatment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(1):16–17. doi:10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010018007
Artificial Intelligence Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.