Help
Subscribe


GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy

 15 December 2017

Advanced search
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Classical Cases
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links




Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS

Personal View

Click a heading in the right-hand column to see the selected articles in that subject area

See any comments for this Personal View

Walter L. (Pete) Peterson DDW 2006 - Perspective*
Walter L. (Pete) Peterson, 06 July 2006
fiogf49gjkf0d

During the past DDW three issues hit me particularly hard. First, many decisions by physicians in the United States are made not from the basis of evidence, but from fear of litigation. For example, although there is scant evidence that screening for Barrett's esophagus and surveying if found is beneficial, most physicians do so for fear of “missing” esophageal adenocarcinoma. As another example, consider the patients who attend an emergency room following head injury. Who among them is not the recipient of a CT scan or MRI scan?

Second, I found increasing evidence of “data dribbling”. This is the habit of dividing one's research into multiple abstracts rather than submitting one complete abstract. Is this done to maximize the chance of having at least one abstract accepted? Do abstracts really “count”? Regardless of the immediate cause, the over-arching responsibility must lie with the acceptance of so many abstracts by the participating organizations.

Third, and another result of very high acceptance rates of abstracts at DDW, is a general decline in quality of work presented. At one session I attended, each abstract had a major flaw, often related to inadequate consideration of sample size. While poor methodology and overblown conclusions may be a result of poor, or no, mentoring of young investigators, why must this work be accepted for such a major meeting?

The first of these issues will not be resolved until fear of litigation is no longer prevalent. The latter two will not be resolved until, and if, the participating organizations of DDW show some restraint. Bigger (the meeting) is not necessarily better.

This article was first published on GastroHep.com on 8 July 2006.

Go to top of page

YourComments

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

Close folder Gastroenterology
Mouth
Esophagus
Stomach & duodenum
Helicobacter pylori
Small intestine
Colo-rectum and anus
Pancreas
Inflammatory bowel disease
Functional bowel disorders
Nutrition
Symptoms/signs of gastrointestinal disease
Basic science
Open folder Hepatology
Close folder Endoscopy
Upper endoscopy
ERCP
Colonoscopy
Endoscopic ultrasound
Technology
Practice issues

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2017 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us