Certaines disciplines ont de très mauvais journaux et que publient-ils ? Des mauvais articles d'auteurs qui découvrent ce que tout le monde connait et qui en sont fiers ! C'est le cas de cet article sur les biais de publication dans les journaux de chirurgie maxillo-faciale. L'article, collaboration de plusieurs équipes (Allemagne, France, Grèce, Thailande), est le résumé d'une thèse qui doit être assez mauvaise.
Pour faire court : analyse en 2008 des meilleurs journaux de la discipline (International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery ; Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery) ; sur 952 articles, 53 étaient des essais controllés ; résultats positif dans 41 cas (77 % ) ; échantillon inférieur à 100 dans 37 cas (70 %) ; j'arrête……. car bien sûr on ne sait pas combien étaient randomisés, quel était le nombre moyen de cas des 16 essais ayant plus de 100 cas, etc…….
L'article est en fait une longue discussion avec des découvertes de l'auteur sur les recommandations des journaux, sur les pratiques des auteurs, etc……avec un ramassis d'opinions sous couvert de preuves…. TRISTE….. Lisez pour rire ou faire rire quand vous faites un cours mais surtout OUBLIEZ cet article…..
Pitak-Arnnop P et al. Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: an observation on published controlled trials. Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. 2010;38:4-10.
3 commentaires
Dear Dr. Maisonneuve,
I accidentally found your website and did read your comments on my recent publication (J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2010;38:4-10) with great interest.
I am very delighted to see a French native speaker trying his best to digest the biomedical literature in English.
Unfortunately, negative comments become fruitful only if they creat the constructive idea.
The main aim of digesting publications is to summerize what articles say. This undoubtfuly lessens time and enables busy clinicians to get new information.
In my recent publication, it has been the first paper in leading oral-maxillofacial surgery journals that discusses publication bias.
It was written to communicate with maxillofacial surgeons. Probably you who is an excellent scientist/physician may already know the publication bias very well. BUT !!! this is not the case in my surgical community.
This article received a priority to get published very fast before other papers in the waiting list, and it was selected as the first publication of the year 2010 of the journal that is the official journal of the European Association of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.
When you critize the paper negatively, it also jeopardizes the contribution of the authors (of course, as you said, this includes a French author) and the decision of expert reviewers in the field (again, it is my filed, not for everyboy in other fileds).
It is my strong suggestion that you write a letter to the journal’s editor and present your idea what is good and what are bad in my publication.
More importantly, please also demonstrate what we, maxillofacial surgeons, should do to minimize and/or control the publication bias.
I am looking forward to reading your constructive comments published in the Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.
This would be the great knowledge in our surgical community.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Poramate Pitak-Arnnop
Department of Oral, Craniomaxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery,
Scientific Unit for Clinical and Psychosocial Research, Evidence-Based Surgery and Ethics in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery,
Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Leipzig,
Nürnberger Straße 57, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Dear Dr Pomarate Pitak-Arnnop,
thanks for your comments, and you are right when asking more constructive comments. I understand that there is a long way in this specialty before having science based on evidence, and decreasing the debates based on opinions.
Your efforts must be valorised and I will respond positively to the journal.
I appreciate your constructive reaction and your behaviour to help these surgeons to understand good methodological practices.
Sincerely
Hervé Maisonneuve
Je partage cet avis, et c’est malheureux. J’exerce depuis le début des années 2000 et c’est vrai que la littérature scientifique autour de la chirurgie maxillo-faciale, n’est pas toujours d’une grande tenue.