You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Easier to see the speck in your critical peers’ eyes than the log in your own? Response to Debelle et al
  1. Niels Lynøe1,
  2. Göran Elinder2,
  3. Boubou Hallberg3,
  4. Måns Rosén4,
  5. Pia Sundgren5,
  6. Anders Eriksson6
  1. 1 Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  2. 2 Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  3. 3 Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  4. 4 Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  5. 5 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  6. 6 Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Forensic Medicine, Umeå, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Professor Niels Lynøe, Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 171 77, Sweden; niels.lynoe{at}ki.se

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2018-315380

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Once again a group of paediatricians1 has made critical comments about our systematic review of the shaken baby literature.2 3 Surprisingly, however, this time the criticism includes accusations of circular reasoning! Surprisingly, because the main reason that we assessed the shaken baby studies as biased was that they were based on circular reasoning.2 3 Even though it may be easier to observe ‘the speck in your friend’s eye than the log in your own’, it is remarkable that Debelle et al 1 avoid criticising circular reasoning within their own research area. On the contrary, the authors maintain that the clinical investigations of suspected …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding None declared.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.