Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I wasn't able to spot this in the paper version of the BMJ.
If it wasn't published that means Drs will have read the previous article White claiming that going back to the 2007 protocol makes "not a ha'porth of difference", but not about the actual data showing that the protocol recovery criteria means that it cannot be claimed CBT or GET improve recovery rates.
Also, it seems that the BMJ still have not published Matthees' Rapid Response to their previous article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654128#cm27654128_30328
BMJ not doing well here.
(There was a piece in the latest BMJ that had Wessely talking about how great it is to have support from the colleagues you met as a junior doctor... yeah, I'm sure those personal connection can come in really handy).
If it wasn't published that means Drs will have read the previous article White claiming that going back to the 2007 protocol makes "not a ha'porth of difference", but not about the actual data showing that the protocol recovery criteria means that it cannot be claimed CBT or GET improve recovery rates.
Also, it seems that the BMJ still have not published Matthees' Rapid Response to their previous article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654128#cm27654128_30328
BMJ not doing well here.
(There was a piece in the latest BMJ that had Wessely talking about how great it is to have support from the colleagues you met as a junior doctor... yeah, I'm sure those personal connection can come in really handy).