This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
To The Editor:
The recent exchange between Drs. Ahlskog and Uitti1 and Drs. Olanow and Rascol2 regarding the ADAGIO study demonstrates a curious paradox in our professional debates. Research trials intended to affect patient care must meet high standards in supporting data and rationale.
However, it seems that counterclaims made in commentaries are exempt and just the possibility of the counterclaim is considered sufficient. Drs. Olanow and Rascol pointed out the many speculative and unsubstantiated counterclaims. The concern is the paradox, which is the result of failure to distinguish and therefore conflate the nature of scientific/academic and clinical debates.
Scientific/academic and clinical debates are not synonymous,3 despite the attractiveness to the contrary. Given the fundamental epistemic limits of science,4,5 the standards for encouraging criticism in scientific debate are necessarily less and mere possibility justifies consideration.
In patient care, however, higher standards are necessary on both sides of the issue. Applying the more freewheeling scientific criticism to clinical questions risks radical skepticism and therapeutic nihilism, which is not what patients need.
From a scientific perspective, the commentary by Drs. Ahlskog and Uitti is welcome, but as to the clinical import, perhaps it is not so useful.
Footnotes
Disclosure: Dr. Montgomery served on the speaker's bureau of Boehringer and Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals and Teva Pharmaceuticals, serves on the scientific advisory board of the American Parkinson's Disease Association (uncompensated) and on the editorial boards of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Clinical Neuropharmacology (uncompensated), is a consultant to St. Jude Neuromodulation Inc., and received institutional support from the Dr. Sigmund Rosen Fund of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
To The Editor:
Drs. Ahlskog and Uitti1 and I6 raised concerns …
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Avalglucosidase Alfa in Patients With Late-Onset Pompe Disease
Dr. Marianne de Visser and Dr. Maudy Theunissen