Editor—Coste et al evaluated different techniques in gynaecological cytology,1 but I could not find any comments in the paper about whether replacement of the conventional Pap smear by liquid based methods should be reconsidered, although this was highlighted in the accompanying paragraph for This week in the BMJ, “New cervical smear tests should not replace conventional ones.” I therefore wonder on what basis the BMJ editors arrived at this needlessly provocative and unsubstantiated statement in the name of the authors?
I also wonder why the editors of the BMJ, which is not a journal dedicated to pathology or cytopathology, should have chosen to review and publish the study by Coste et al and to introduce it in this manner. Perhaps before publication, they should have consulted with the cytology programme in Scotland, which has evaluated these techniques and decided to implement them, and with the NHS itself, which has recently completed studies at two pilot sites in England that evaluate liquid based technology for future implementation and has reported clear advantages over conventional methods for at least one of these technologies.
Perhaps what should be reconsidered is whether the tabloid nature of the editors' comments has any place in the medical literature and whether these comments reflect on the ability of the editors appropriately and objectively to select the manuscripts that are submitted to them.
Competing interests: The employer of JW has been reimbursed by Cytyc for his travel expenses for attending several European conferences. JW does not own any stocks and has not received any consultant fees, salary, funding for staff, or other support.
References
- 1.Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, Le Galès C, Cartier I, Molinié V, et al. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003;326: 733. (5 April.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]