This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Ethics  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Dermatologic Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

I thank Dr Eichenfield and his colleagues for taking the trouble to provide the key information that was missing from their original clinical trial report.¹ As an author and an editor, I fully understand and appreciate the pressures on authors to edit their reports drastically. Sometimes, however, this results in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Omitting to mention the fundamental aspects of a clinical trial report, such as describing how randomization was generated and hidden from the recruiting physicians,² giving details on masking, and explaining whether ethical approval was obtained, makes it very difficult for a reader to judge the quality of the study: it is a bit like trying to buy a secondhand car without being shown the car's service history, tax disk, and road testing certificate. But now, thanks to the additional facts provided in Dr Eichenfield and colleagues' letter, it is clear to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Hywel Williams, MSc, PhD, FRCP
Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology
University of Nottingham
Queen's Medical Centre
Nottingham NG7 2UH, England
(e-mail: hywel.williams@nottingham.ac.uk)

RELATED ARTICLE

1% Pimecrolimus Cream for Atopic Dermatitis
Lawrence F. Eichenfield, Anne W. Lucky, Mark Boguniewicz, Richard G. B. Langley, Robert Cherill, and Katharine Marshall
Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(10):1369-1370.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT