This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

George W. Brown, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1985;121(11):1391-1393.

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

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, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?