TY - JOUR T1 - Easier to see the speck in your critical peers’ eyes than the log in your own? Response to Debelle <em>et al</em> JF - Archives of Disease in Childhood JO - Arch Dis Child SP - 714 LP - 714 DO - 10.1136/archdischild-2018-315380 VL - 103 IS - 7 AU - Niels Lynøe AU - Göran Elinder AU - Boubou Hallberg AU - Måns Rosén AU - Pia Sundgren AU - Anders Eriksson Y1 - 2018/07/01 UR - http://adc.bmj.com/content/103/7/714.1.abstract N2 - 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 … ER -