- Email: [email protected]
Does the Editorial Board Live up to September 10, 2001, Expectations?
Letters to the Editor
Does the Editorial Board Live up to September 10, 2001, Expectations?
laparoscopy, there was no case of missed bowel injury, and although most bowel injuries had been treated expectantly, no case of abscess formation or sepsis was reported.3 An anonymous editorial published without references and, moreover, neglecting to refer to published data cannot be in line with the high level of objective and critical information as set forward by the editorial board.
To the Editor: We read with interest, but also with some concern, the editorial on transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) published in this journal (9(3):238, 2002). While we fully appreciate that the editorial board will continue to assist readers in assessing the quality of research reported and highlight potential conflicts of interest, the same criteria for quality should also apply to an editorial. We have two major concerns with the editorial. First, the editorial board of the Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists fails to meet recommendations on sponsorship, authorship, and accountability published on September 10, 2001, in the Lancet.1 This editorial, by 11 editors of major biomedical journals, states that disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest is particularly important in connection with editorials, because bias and conflict of interest can be more difficult to detect in such publications. Obviously, an anonymous editorial fails to meet that criterion. Second, the unidentifiable author of the editorial states that “it may take a thousand or several thousand cases to reveal the true complication rate for this procedure,” and wonders why THL should not have a similar 1% abscess rate as carried by culdoscopy and vaginal tubal sterilization. Although the editorial was accepted for publication on April 17, 2002, the author negates the publication in December 2001 of a series of 3667 procedures.2 Thus the answer to the question of safety was already in the literature at the time the editorial was written. Moreover, in contrast with
References 1. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, et al: Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet 358:854–856, 2001 2. Gordts S, Watrelot W, Campo R, et al: Risk and outcome of bowel injury during transvaginal pelvic endoscopy. Fertil Steril 76:1238–1241, 2001 3. Brosens I, Gordon A, Campo R, et al: Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:9–13, 2003
Ivo Brosens, M.D. Patrick Puttemans, M.D. Rudi Campo, M.D. Stephan Gordts, M.D. Leuven, Belgium Response: The correspondents make a good point about ex cathedra anonymous editorial comments. Readers will not see another in this journal. Stephen L. Corson, M.D. Editor-in-Chief Philadelphia, PA
308
Does the Editorial Board Live up to September 10, 2001, Expectations?
laparoscopy, there was no case of missed bowel injury, and although most bowel injuries had been treated expectantly, no case of abscess formation or sepsis was reported.3 An anonymous editorial published without references and, moreover, neglecting to refer to published data cannot be in line with the high level of objective and critical information as set forward by the editorial board.
To the Editor: We read with interest, but also with some concern, the editorial on transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) published in this journal (9(3):238, 2002). While we fully appreciate that the editorial board will continue to assist readers in assessing the quality of research reported and highlight potential conflicts of interest, the same criteria for quality should also apply to an editorial. We have two major concerns with the editorial. First, the editorial board of the Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists fails to meet recommendations on sponsorship, authorship, and accountability published on September 10, 2001, in the Lancet.1 This editorial, by 11 editors of major biomedical journals, states that disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest is particularly important in connection with editorials, because bias and conflict of interest can be more difficult to detect in such publications. Obviously, an anonymous editorial fails to meet that criterion. Second, the unidentifiable author of the editorial states that “it may take a thousand or several thousand cases to reveal the true complication rate for this procedure,” and wonders why THL should not have a similar 1% abscess rate as carried by culdoscopy and vaginal tubal sterilization. Although the editorial was accepted for publication on April 17, 2002, the author negates the publication in December 2001 of a series of 3667 procedures.2 Thus the answer to the question of safety was already in the literature at the time the editorial was written. Moreover, in contrast with
References 1. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, et al: Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet 358:854–856, 2001 2. Gordts S, Watrelot W, Campo R, et al: Risk and outcome of bowel injury during transvaginal pelvic endoscopy. Fertil Steril 76:1238–1241, 2001 3. Brosens I, Gordon A, Campo R, et al: Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 10:9–13, 2003
Ivo Brosens, M.D. Patrick Puttemans, M.D. Rudi Campo, M.D. Stephan Gordts, M.D. Leuven, Belgium Response: The correspondents make a good point about ex cathedra anonymous editorial comments. Readers will not see another in this journal. Stephen L. Corson, M.D. Editor-in-Chief Philadelphia, PA
308