4 ms·

Can any physicians or researchers here verify the credibility of this site, to prevent misinformation?

pacman83 7y ago
British Medical Journal? Impact factor 27.604 in 2018. But in scientific publishing the intended audience is not lay people. You really have to know how to read the articles to determine what they mean. I liked their series of articles called "How to Read a Paper."[0] But keep in mind [1]. 0. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/how-read-paper https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications... 1. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
- officialchicken 7y ago
  Thank you, HN is definitely not the intended audience
VBprogrammer 7y ago
Assuming it's the BMJ that I know of that's the 'British Medical Journal' which is highly regarded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ
- hestefisk 7y ago
  Yes, together with New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, they are the ‘Nature’ equivalent of medical science.
  - russholmes 7y ago
    The BMJ is the Daily Mail of medical journals, its target audience is whisky-nosed old buffers. Real doctors read the Lancet. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nedgv https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nedgv
    - hestefisk 7y ago
      According to Wikipedia: “ As of 2008, the five journals that have been cited most frequently by articles published in The BMJ are The BMJ, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.” So your statement is quite incorrect or you are being sarcastic.
sebbo 7y ago
This is a well-written meta analysis in a top-tier medical journal which demonstrates a convincing relationship between acute respiratory infection, Vit D baseline levels, and supplementation. However, their conclusion that the findings warrant public health interventions and widespread supplementation is arguable. There are real risks and costs to over-supplementation, and the absolute risk reduction they demonstrate (from 42% to 40%) is not large.

British Medical Journal? Impact factor 27.604 in 2018. But in scientific publishing the intended audience is not lay people. You really have to know how to read the articles to determine what they mean. I liked their series of articles called "How to Read a Paper."[0] But keep in mind [1]. 0. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/how-read-paper https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications... 1. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

officialchicken 7y ago
Thank you, HN is definitely not the intended audience

VBprogrammer 7y ago

Assuming it's the BMJ that I know of that's the 'British Medical Journal' which is highly regarded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ

hestefisk 7y ago
Yes, together with New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, they are the ‘Nature’ equivalent of medical science.
- russholmes 7y ago
  The BMJ is the Daily Mail of medical journals, its target audience is whisky-nosed old buffers. Real doctors read the Lancet. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nedgv https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nedgv
  - hestefisk 7y ago
    According to Wikipedia: “ As of 2008, the five journals that have been cited most frequently by articles published in The BMJ are The BMJ, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.” So your statement is quite incorrect or you are being sarcastic.

sebbo 7y ago

This is a well-written meta analysis in a top-tier medical journal which demonstrates a convincing relationship between acute respiratory infection, Vit D baseline levels, and supplementation. However, their conclusion that the findings warrant public health interventions and widespread supplementation is arguable. There are real risks and costs to over-supplementation, and the absolute risk reduction they demonstrate (from 42% to 40%) is not large.