This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert Twycross, MA, DM, FRCP
Oxford University Oxford, England

Norelle Lickiss, MD, FRACP, FRCPE
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia

JAMA. 1996;275(11):835.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Like many others, we welcome the increasingly systematic approach to therapeutic review articles. We wonder, however, whether there is need for a code of practice to govern the publication of systematic reviews. Thus, while we cannot argue with the presentation of data from eight studies in the article by Drs Jadad and Browman,¹ we are disturbed by the tone and content of the commentary.

In our opinion, the authors have made a fundamental error in calling for a randomized controlled trial of a concept (the WHO three-step analgesic ladder). Indeed, it has already been demonstrated in Canada that it is difficult to evaluate the broader concept of palliative care.¹ Thus, to say that randomized controlled trials of the three-step analgesic ladder are necessary before we can say that it has improved the management of cancer pain is naive and irrelevant. In all areas of clinical . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?