This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • 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.

Sam Gibbs¹ is to be congratulated on his research commentary "Breakthrough in the Treatment of Warts" published in the June issue of the ARCHIVES. The flaws in the original article² are so significant that one wonders how it survived the peer-review process and made it to print. Surely no patient will ever benefit from the findings. It is poignant that the commentary appears in the same volume of the ARCHIVES as an article assessing the frequency of statistical errors in the dermatological literature.³ I applaud the ARCHIVES for being so open and honest about some of its publication shortcomings. Only by assessing our inadequacies can we look forward, improve the quality of dermatological research, and provide better evidence-based patient care.

There are several basic principles of research planning, development, and reporting. Without these, research does not help improve patient care:

• Ask an appropriate research question that . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Breakthrough in the Treatment of Warts?
Sam Gibbs
Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(6):767-768.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT