Does a mobbing in research exist?
Fabrizio Salvi, MD
IRCCS delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Italy
fabrizio.salvi@gmail.com
Pierfrancesco Veroux, MD
S.C. di Chirurgia Vascolare e Centro Trapianti, Università di Catania, Italy
pveroux@unict.it
Sir,
We are both fascinated and motivated in understanding the role of cerebral venous return in brain pathophysiology, as well as in the development of specific neurological symptoms. We also read with interest the editorial published by Bourdette and Cohen in the last issue of Neurology.1 The Authors invite to move in an opposite direction, and, in doing so, do not hesitate to use dishonorable appellations and examples for those who have different ideas. The Science behind vascular investigation, as well as the benefits for patients achieved by the means of the modern endovascular treatment in different fields of application, does not merit being confused through mystifying comparison with historical corporal treatment cited by Bourdette and Cohen.
The letter would comment the results of a clinical trial published on the same issue by Siddiqui et al., who investigated the efficacy of Internal Jugular Veins angioplasty in the treatment of patients with Multiple Sclerosis.2 Safety of venous angioplasty is well known and documented in previews papers and as primary outcome measure of the study was completely achieved. Unfortunately they were able to enroll only 9 and 10 patients in angioplasty and sham arm respectively. The statistical power to achieve such information was calculated for a double blinded RCT actually in course (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01371760), and require hundreds of enrolled patients, as well delineated in the statistical section of the study design.3 Despite this, the Authors draw arbitrary and definitive conclusions to suspend a multicenter randomized trial with solid outcome measures, and hundreds of recruited patients before conclusions. The level of scientific debate is usually elegant and more objective, especially when writing an editorial aimed to guide the readership in the current scientific interpretation of an article.4 We would recommend, with the aim to build a constructive debate, to bring this scientific dispute in the academic track as well to respect research activities carried out through the correct ethical and scientific pre-requirements.
References
[TOP]