Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Highlights from this issue
  1. Nick Brown, Editor in Chief1,2,3
  1. 1 International Maternal and Child Health, Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  2. 2 Department of Paediatrics, Länssjukhuset Gävle-Sandviken, Gävle, Sweden
  3. 3 Department of Child Health, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nick Brown, International Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Akademiska Sjukhuset, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden; nickjwbrown{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Non-urgency

I’ll admit it: I find the ending salvo to a paper to the effect that ‘more studies are urgently required’ oddly enervating. In essence, I think there are four reasons. First, it should be a reader’s prerogative to decide which level of the ecosystem of evidence the paper inhabits. Second, it feels as if the authors are perhaps trying too hard. Thirdly, it has an oddly counterintuitive diminishing effect on one’s confidence in the findings: it’s easy to misconstrue as saying ‘we’re not sure our findings standalone’. Finally, on a (pedantic) semantic point, it often represents a misuse of the term ‘urgency’ itself.

This practice isn’t of course, confined to medicine, and is perhaps simply a reflection of societal trends: the email exclamation mark, the use of bold and capital letters, the anatomical attachment to the mobile and social media site, the raising of voices (ruffling of feathers…) to which we are all, probably, becoming unwittingly inured.

As …

View Full Text

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.