Veins and Lymphatics – “Does a mobbing in research exist?”, by Fabrizio Salvi, MD and Pierfrancesco Veroux, MD
http://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/vl/article/view/vl.2014.4645/4083

Letter to the Editor Corner
Fabrizio Salvi, MD
IRCCS delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Italy
fabrizio.salvi@gmail.com

Pierfrancesco Veroux, MD
S.C. di Chirurgia Vascolare e Centro Trapianti, Università di Catania, Italy
pveroux@unict.it
Sir,

We are both fascinated and motivated in understanding the role of cerebral venous return in brain pathophysiology, as well as in the development of specific neurological symptoms. We also read with interest the editorial published by Bourdette and Cohen in the last issue of Neurology.1 The Authors invite to move in an opposite direction, and, in doing so, do not hesitate to use dishonorable appellations and examples for those who have different ideas. The Science behind vascular investigation, as well as the benefits for patients achieved by the means of the modern endovascular treatment in different fields of application, does not merit being confused through mystifying comparison with historical corporal treatment cited by Bourdette and Cohen.

The letter would comment the results of a clinical trial published on the same issue by Siddiqui et al., who investigated the efficacy of Internal Jugular Veins angioplasty in the treatment of patients with Multiple Sclerosis.2 Safety of venous angioplasty is well known and documented in previews papers and as primary outcome measure of the study was completely achieved. Unfortunately they were able to enroll only 9 and 10 patients in angioplasty and sham arm respectively. The statistical power to achieve such information was calculated for a double blinded RCT actually in course (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01371760), and require hundreds of enrolled patients, as well delineated in the statistical section of the study design.3 Despite this, the Authors draw arbitrary and definitive conclusions to suspend a multicenter randomized trial with solid outcome measures, and hundreds of recruited patients before conclusions. The level of scientific debate is usually elegant and more objective, especially when writing an editorial aimed to guide the readership in the current scientific interpretation of an article.4 We would recommend, with the aim to build a constructive debate, to bring this scientific dispute in the academic track as well to respect research activities carried out through the correct ethical and scientific pre-requirements.
________________________________________
References
1. Bourdette DN, Cohen JA. Venous angioplasty for "CCSVI" in multiple sclerosis: Ending a therapeutic misadventure. Neurology 2014 2014;83:388-9. [Crossref] [Pubmed]
2. Siddiqui AH, Zivadinov R, Benedict RH, et al. Prospective randomized trial of venous angioplasty in MS (PREMiSe). Neurology 2014;83:441-9. [Crossref] [Pubmed]
3. Zamboni P, Bertolotto A, Boldrini P, et al. Efficacy and safety of venous angioplasty of the extracranial veins for multiple sclerosis. Brave dreams study (brain venous drainage exploited against multiple sclerosis): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2012;13:183. [Crossref] [Pubmed]
4. Zamboni P, Menegatti E, Occhionorelli S, Salvi F. The controversy on chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency. Veins and Lymphatics 2013;2:e14. [Crossref]
Submitted: 2014-07-31 16:19:27
Published: 2014-07-31 00:00:00
Search for citations in Google Scholar
Related articles: Google Scholar




Does a mobbing in research exist? | Salvi | Veins and Lymphatics
www.pagepressjournals.org
Does a mobbing in research exist?