This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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

The article titled "Tazarotene Cream for the Treatment of Facial Photodamage" in the December 2001 issue of the ARCHIVES¹ is far removed from the standards of evidence-based medicine. There are missing data, numerical juggling, and selective reporting of data.

In the authors' summary, percentage success rates are based on "global response," a measure that involved the investigator's memory. At each visit, evaluators compared the subject's condition with their recall of the subject's appearance at baseline and scored this on a 7-point scale. Is it realistic to expect an investigator to remember what the subject's skin looked like 6 months ago?

Using numbers for subjective end points provides the illusion of objective data. Numbers give credence to scientific studies because one can provide percentage figures, draw graphs, and do statistical manipulations. How do you convert subjective evaluations, such as moderate response or slight response and similar gradations, to numbers? The authors . . . [Full Text of this Article]

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