This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Letters (85)

Published on in Vol 7, No 4 (2005):

"Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - A Response From the Authors of the Cochrane Review: Author's Reply (1)

"Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - A Response From the Authors of the Cochrane Review: Author's Reply (1)

"Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - A Response From the Authors of the Cochrane Review: Author's Reply (1)

Authors of this article:

Roy Rada
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Letter

    Corresponding Author:

    Roy Rada, MD, PhD

    Department of Information Systems

    University of Maryland Baltimore County

    1000 Hilltop Circle

    Baltimore, MD 21250

    USA

    Phone: +1 410 455 2645

    Fax:+1 410 455 1073

    Email: rada@umbc.edu


    Related ArticlesComment on: Rada R. A Case Study of a Retracted Systematic Review on Interactive Health Communication Applications: Impact on Media, Scientists, and Patients. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(2) p. e18 http://www.jmir.org/2005/2/e18/
    Comment on: Murray E, Burns J, Tai SS, Nazareth I. "Is Cybermedicine Killing You?" - A Response from the Authors of the Cochrane Review. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(2) p. e40 http://www.jmir.org/2005/4/e40/
    J Med Internet Res 2005;7(4):e41

    doi:10.2196/jmir.7.4.e41



    Murray et al's letter to the editor says that my paper [1] contains three factual inaccuracies. The first is that Nazareth was not responsible for coding the data and is not credited with this in the review. In fact, the list of contributions in the review did not explicitly use the term "coding," but it credits Tai with "designed analytical strategy, extracted and synthesised data...," and Nazareth with "designed review and analytical strategy, interpreted data..." from which I concluded that both Nazareth and Tai were jointly responsible for coding. I appreciate the clarification of Murray and colleagues. Secondly, my statement that the "UCL...news bulletin...remained there" was not meant to imply that it remained there devoid of a retraction statement. In fact, I did write that "the original press releases [are] now marked with 'retraction.'" Regarding the third issue, I acknowledge that this has been an oversight on my part. I apologize for interpreting incorrectly for item 1, communicating ambiguously for item 2, and being factually wrong for item 3.

    1. Rada R. A case study of a retracted systematic review on interactive health communication applications: impact on media, scientists, and patients. J Med Internet Res 2005 Jun 30;7(2):e18 [FREE Full text] [Medline] [CrossRef]

    Edited by G Eysenbach; This is a non–peer-reviewed article. submitted 10.07.05; accepted 10.07.05; published 28.07.05

    Copyright

    © Roy Rada. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 28.7.2005. Except where otherwise noted, articles published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, including full bibliographic details and the URL (see "please cite as" above), and this statement is included.