Statistics from Altmetric.com
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 …
Funding None declared.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
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.