How to read a paper by Trisha Greenhalgh et al (from the eBMJ): Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about); Assessing the methodological quality of published papers; Statistics for the non-statistician; “Significant” relations and their pitfalls; Papers that report drug trials; Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests; Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses); Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses); Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research).

Play “5’s” (from the eBMJ):

“Shall I compare thee to a…..” Imre Loefler sent us his comparison of the “big five” general medical journals with the big five game animals of Africa. Then he compared them

with ships. Read “The Big Five”. Read “Five Ships” . Clearly, the possibilities of this are endless, and we thought that more people might like to join in the game…Remember the

field from which you choose your five examples is wide open:composers, political regimes, trees, psychiatric states, intestinal parasites, cartoon characters, odours…. For the record, the five general medical journals are: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine.

Rationalizing the Cannabis Debate:

Rational debate has

often been obstructed because the media present a forced choice between two sets of views. One of these constructed views is that

cannabis is harmless when used recreationally, is therapeutically useful, and hence should be legalised. The other is that recreational use

is harmful to health and that cannabis should continue to be prohibited for recreational or therapeutic purposes.4

This oversimplification of the cannabis debate has prevented a more considered examination of eight conceptually separate issues (box).

We believe that a competent consideration of these issues would contribute to a more informed debate about the appropriate public

policies that could be adopted towards cannabis use for recreational or therapeutic purposes.

How to read a paper by Trisha Greenhalgh et al (from the eBMJ): Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about); Assessing the methodological quality of published papers; Statistics for the non-statistician; “Significant” relations and their pitfalls; Papers that report drug trials; Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests; Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses); Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses); Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research).

Play “5’s” (from the eBMJ):

“Shall I compare thee to a…..” Imre Loefler sent us his comparison of the “big five” general medical journals with the big five game animals of Africa. Then he compared them

with ships. Read “The Big Five”. Read “Five Ships” . Clearly, the possibilities of this are endless, and we thought that more people might like to join in the game…Remember the

field from which you choose your five examples is wide open:composers, political regimes, trees, psychiatric states, intestinal parasites, cartoon characters, odours…. For the record, the five general medical journals are: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine.

Rationalizing the Cannabis Debate:

Rational debate has

often been obstructed because the media present a forced choice between two sets of views. One of these constructed views is that

cannabis is harmless when used recreationally, is therapeutically useful, and hence should be legalised. The other is that recreational use

is harmful to health and that cannabis should continue to be prohibited for recreational or therapeutic purposes.4

This oversimplification of the cannabis debate has prevented a more considered examination of eight conceptually separate issues (box).

We believe that a competent consideration of these issues would contribute to a more informed debate about the appropriate public

policies that could be adopted towards cannabis use for recreational or therapeutic purposes.