Trial By Error: We Asked BMJ to Correct a Paper; BMJ Requested a Rapid Response; We Have Declined
Leave a Comment / By David Tuller / 24 March 2024
Leave a Comment / By David Tuller / 24 March 2024
By David Tuller, DrPH
Two weeks ago, I sent a letter to
The BMJ on behalf of myself and 12 colleagues seeking a correction in a study published last month. The study, called
Clinical Effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial,” claimed that the intervention under investigation had been shown to be “clinically effective.” As our letter pointed out, this claim is untrue. In fact, the results for the primary outcome, health-related quality of life, fell below the threshold for what is considered to be a clinically important or minimally important difference on that measure. In other words, any measured benefits were so small as to be essentially meaningless even if they were statistically significant.
Last week, I received a response from Dr Nazrul Islam, an editor at
The BMJ. He requested that we submit a rapid response to the article outlining our concerns. He indicated that
The BMJ would ask the authors to respond, and that the journal would then act in accordance with its policies. After considering the invitation to submit a rapid response, our group has decided to decline it. I have sent Dr Islam a follow-up, explaining our position and again requesting that
The BMJ take the necessary steps to correct the paper. Our response is below.
**********
Dear Dr Islam—
Thank you for the invitation to submit a rapid response regarding our concerns about a recent paper–
“Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial,” from McGregor et al. As we noted in our letter, the paper’s methods section misstates the currently recommended minimally important difference for the primary outcome, as is evident from the reference cited by the authors. That factual error leads the authors to make the unwarranted assertion in the abstract that the intervention was found to be “clinically effective.”
After discussing
The BMJ‘s invitation to submit a rapid response, my colleagues and I have decided to respectfully decline. Few people see rapid responses, especially since most are never formally published as correspondence and are not indexed in the medical literature. Moreover, as our letter noted, a rapid response making a similar point was already submitted on February 13th—in other words, more than a month ago. So far, it appears that the paper’s authors and
The BMJ editorial team have ignored this rapid response.........................
