Twenty top papers to mark The BMJ’s two digital decades
BMJ 2015; 351 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3660 (Published 06 July 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;351:h3660
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Though all 20 papers listed in this paper are worth attention, yet for translation purposes the paper titled "Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India, David Berger (Views and Reviews, BMJ 2014;348:g3169, doi:10.1136/bmj.g3169)" is important.
That is where the core problem in health service delivery is happening. One solution to this lost trust situation may be the audit of medical care and consumer feedback, in which service providers and takers both have a channel of communication which is transparent and can be audited by a third party in case of dispute. The Health Account Scheme being pilot tested by ICMR, India, is about taking account of consumer version and concerns and keeping account of the health care given to them, its effectiveness as well as cost effectiveness.
Some qualitative improvement workshops should be held for medical professionals to improve trust level.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am disappointed that the 50 year follow-up or the British Doctor's study was not included. This was the culmination of a whole series of papers that were fundamental in stopping the smoking epidemic, and also showed the power of cohort studies. In the same issue was a reprint of the first publication: same research project, same subjects, same first author, but 50 years apart. Unique and important.
Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004; 328 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE (Published 24 June 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1519
The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits: a preliminary report: (Reprinted from Br Med J 1954:ii;1451-5)
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1529 (Published 24 June 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1529
Competing interests: No competing interests
Readers and writers are complementary. Readers start at the beginning and work forward, while writers often start at the end and work backward. Like alpha and beta, but neither is greater, readers and writers explore reason and reality in parallel, but they need and meet each other in a series of remote tête-à-têtes that let needs be met.
Competing interests: No competing interests
A major omission is David Sackett's "The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption" from BMJ May 6th 2000.
This should be compulsory reading for researchers, journal editors and especially conference organizers. Sadly the latter seem to remain blissfully unaware in my own specialty of diabetes!
Competing interests: No competing interests
Many thanks to all our readers, authors, friends and colleagues past and present who nominated their most memorable paper for this article. Please vote for the top cited 6, and/or submit alternative papers by posting a response.
Sadly we couldn't include everybody because of the "20" theme, but I wanted to mention this nomination by Utah medical librarian Mike Nielson. Mike is great at giving us constructive feedback about the website (he often notices when things aren't working before we do!)
In fact, Mike's nomination is about feedback. After GP Craig Brown’s wife died of a secondary brain tumour he and his family had had concerns about her care and decided to complain. At first his children had mixed feelings about it. They feared it would remind them of a bad experience and have no effect. Brown wanted to make a "compassionate complaint" and to avoid projecting his family's grief on to them. The complaint was well received and he and his family hope it will lead to improvements.
A compassionate complaint about hospital care made a difference
(BMJ: 2015;350:g7823)
I often describe Peter Arnold as one of the first readers in the world who sees our weekly print issue online. Peter is based in Australia and is regularly in touch. He nominated three papers.
Peter nominated these:
Sharing the raw data from medical research
(BMJ 2009;338:b1252)
How to treat a Pirahã: medical ethics and cultural difference
(BMJ 2015;350:h850)
Why the GMC should set up a central registry of doctors’ competing interests
(BMJ 2014;348:g236)
Peter was not alone in nominating more than one paper. We were very flattered that some readers openly told us they were struggling to nominate a single paper, and mentioned others in passing when they submitted their nomination.
Here are "the ones that got away:"
Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study
(BMJ 2007;335:136)
Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study
(BMJ 2000;321:1376)
How can research ethics committees protect patients better?
(BMJ 2003;326:1199)
How to read a paper : getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about)
(BMJ 1997;315:243)
Unsurprisingly, Richard Smith had other suggestions from his time as editor.
Like Jocalyn Clark, he wanted to highlight papers about death: "Death has been seen as the great enemy by doctors, but this article (and again the accompanying articles in the theme issue) was important in recovering the recognition that a good death is one of the most important things in health care."
He included A good death as a second suggestion.
(BMJ 2000;320:129)
He also submitted this study of general practitioners' reasons for changing their prescribing behaviour (BMJ 1996;312:949), adding: "I couldn’t claim that this article has had a big influence, but it’s one that I find I return to more than any other. It showed how doctors are human rather than scientific in how they change their practice."
Richard also picks up Muir Gray's "too much medicine" theme in citing the print issue published while he was editor,
Too much medicine (BMJ 2002;324:859) .
It marked a point he added, "when modern medicine began to over reach itself. "
Finally, he mentions the polypill which, in his words, is slowly but surely having a global impact, adding: "It's important to realise that there will be many polypills (off patent drugs with different actions combined into one pill) for many conditions."
This paper A strategy to reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 80% (BMJ 2003;326:1419), contributes to the discussion, he concludes..
Competing interests: No competing interests
"The scandal of poor medical research" comes first in top papers poll
As part of our 20th online anniversary celebrations we ran a poll which asked readers to nominate which paper The BMJ should be most proud of publishing.
We confined the poll to Web of Science's top six most highly cited papers from the list of 20 articles.
The poll ran from July 7-15 2015 and attracted 576 votes across 55 countries.
Many thanks to all those who voted, and to readers who have also responded to this article with others papers which they feel have had a major impact.
Competing interests: No competing interests