Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-25 (86)

Clipboard (0)
more »
Year of Publication
more »
1.  A fairly happy birthday 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;337(7660):25-29.
In the final article of his series on the NHS, Tony Delamothe looks at the effects of recent reforms and assesses the threat to its founding principles
PMCID: PMC2443550  PMID: 18595936
2.  How the NHS measures up 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7659):1469-1471.
In the fifth article in his series, Tony Delamothe examines two important factors in judging the success of the UK health system: the satisfaction of its users and how it rates compares with other countries
PMCID: PMC2440839  PMID: 18583679
3.  Continuous publication 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7659):1450.
The next logical step
PMCID: PMC2440852
4.  A centrally funded health service, free at the point of delivery 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7658):1410-1412.
Funding the NHS solely through taxation has led to tensions throughout its history. But, as Tony Delamothe reports in his fourth article on the NHS, it still looks like the most efficient option
PMCID: PMC2432113  PMID: 18566079
5.  A comprehensive service 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7657):1344-1345.
NHS costs quickly overtook its budget, resulting in limitations on care. In the third article in his series, Tony Delamothe looks at the difficulties of defining and meeting need
PMCID: PMC2427097  PMID: 18556315
6.  Universality, equity, and quality of care 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7656):1278-1281.
Sixty years on, the NHS is still struggling to ensure equal access to the best care. In the second article in his series, Tony Delamothe examines the difficulties
PMCID: PMC2413332  PMID: 18535070
7.  Complexity theory 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7656):0.
PMCID: PMC2413334
8.  Founding principles 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7655):1216-1218.
Inthe first in a series ofarticles marking the 60th anniversary of the foundation of the NHS, Tony Delamothe examines what drove its formation
PMCID: PMC2405823  PMID: 18511796
9.  Reds 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7654):0.
PMCID: PMC2394580
10.  Twenty first century native 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7651):986-988.
Larry Brilliant is executive director of Google’s philanthropic arm. Tony Delamothe talked to him about his medical career, Google’s global health projects, and how the appointment finally made sense of his life
PMCID: PMC2364813  PMID: 18456626
11.  Of medicine and medicines 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7646):0.
PMCID: PMC2276293
12.  Government’s response to the Tooke inquiry into Modernising Medical Careers 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7644):571-572.
Lacks a sense of urgency and an explicit timetable
PMCID: PMC2267945  PMID: 18340046
13.  What counts? 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7638):0.
PMCID: PMC2223010
14.  Modernising Medical Careers: final report 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2008;336(7635):54-55.
Now implement it
PMCID: PMC2190265  PMID: 18182414
15.  Orthopaedic gorillas no more 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;335(7633):0.
PMCID: PMC2151146
16.  When Blair went to market 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;335(7629):1100.
Blair's Damascene conversion to market forces was one of the many differences he had with Gordon Brown, a new television series has shown. Where does that leave the NHS under Blair's rival, asks Tony Delamothe
PMCID: PMC2094151
17.  Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial 
Objectives To see whether telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews of original research papers might be posted on the BMJ’s website would affect the quality of their reviews.
Design Randomised controlled trial.
Setting A large international general medical journal based in the United Kingdom.
Participants 541 authors, 471 peer reviewers, and 12 editors.
Intervention Consecutive eligible papers were randomised either to have the reviewer’s signed report made available on the BMJ’s website alongside the published paper (intervention group) or to have the report made available only to the author—the BMJ’s normal procedure (control group). The intervention was the act of revealing to reviewers—after they had agreed to review but before they undertook their review—that their signed report might appear on the website.
Main outcome measures The main outcome measure was the quality of the reviews, as independently rated on a scale of 1 to 5 using a validated instrument by two editors and the corresponding author. Authors and editors were blind to the intervention group. Authors rated review quality before the fate of their paper had been decided. Additional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the reviewer’s recommendation regarding publication.
Results 558 manuscripts were randomised, and 471 manuscripts remained after exclusions. Of the 1039 reviewers approached to take part in the study, 568 (55%) declined. Two editors’ evaluations of the quality of the peer review were obtained for all 471 manuscripts, with the corresponding author’s evaluation obtained for 453. There was no significant difference in review quality between the intervention and control groups (mean difference for editors 0.04, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.17; for authors 0.06, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.20). Any possible difference in favour of the control group was well below the level regarded as editorially significant. Reviewers in the intervention group took significantly longer to review (mean difference 25 minutes, 95% CI 3.0 to 47.0 minutes).
Conclusion Telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the BMJ’s website had no important effect on review quality. Although the possibility of posting reviews online was associated with a high refusal rate among potential peer reviewers and an increase in the amount of time taken to write a review, we believe that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.
PMCID: PMC2982798  PMID: 21081600
18.  Going to extremes 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;335(7626):0.
PMCID: PMC2048889
19.  Modernising Medical Careers laid bare 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;335(7623):733-734.
Another fine mess the Department of Health has got doctors into
PMCID: PMC2018770  PMID: 17932164
20.  The way of the world 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;335(7623):0.
PMCID: PMC2018806
21.  Why this unholy trinity? 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;335(7615):0.
PMCID: PMC1949427
22.  Adequacy of authors’ replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study 
Objective To investigate whether substantive criticism in electronic letters to the editor, defined as a problem that could invalidate the research or reduce its reliability, is adequately addressed by the authors.
Design Cohort study.
Setting BMJ between October 2005 and September 2007.
Inclusion criteria Research papers generating substantive criticism in the rapid responses section on
Main outcome measures Severity of criticism (minor, moderate, or major) as judged by two editors and extent to which the criticism was addressed by authors (fully, partly, or not) as judged by two editors and the critics.
Results A substantive criticism was raised against 105 of 350 (30%, 95% confidence interval 25% to 35%) included research papers, and of these the authors had responded to 47 (45%, 35% to 54%). The severity of the criticism was the same in those papers as in the 58 without author replies (mean score 2.2 in both groups, P=0.72). For the 47 criticisms with replies, there was no relation between the severity of the criticism and the adequacy of the reply, neither as judged by the editors (P=0.88 and P=0.95, respectively) nor by the critics (P=0.83; response rate 85%). However, the critics were much more critical of the replies than the editors (average score 2.3 v 1.4, P<0.001).
Conclusions Authors are reluctant to respond to criticisms of their work, although they are not less likely to respond when criticisms are severe. Editors should ensure that authors take relevant criticism seriously and respond adequately to it.
PMCID: PMC2919680  PMID: 20699306
23.  FAFfing about 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;334(7608):0.
PMCID: PMC1906649
24.  Centralised application services for specialist training 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;334(7607):1285-1286.
Other countries manage
PMCID: PMC1895656  PMID: 17585124
25.  Why the UK's Medical Training Application Service failed 
BMJ : British Medical Journal  2007;334(7593):543-544.
No convincing validation of the new process was provided
PMCID: PMC1828293  PMID: 17360723

Results 1-25 (86)