This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Frohlich, E. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Frohlich, E. D.

(Hypertension. 2000;35:693.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Research Means "Look Back"

Edward D. Frohlich

From Hypertension, Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, New Orleans, La.

Correspondence to Edward D. Frohlich, MD, Editor-in-Chief, Hypertension, Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, 1516 Jefferson Hwy, BH 514, New Orleans, LA 70121.

	Introduction

 
Anumber of concerns have been raised recently by medical editors; one issue receiving attention relates to the "myopic" or condensed view of literature review,¹ aided and abetted by the use of "single" or "double" Medline searches (restricting the review of the medical literature variously to three or six years). This restricted search of the extant literature was termed "MEDLINE-Induced Blindness."¹ Not only is this issue no laughing matter, but it is extremely costly because it leads to repetitive research activity of well-established lines of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, journal reviewers, it would seem, are loathe to point out this serious lapse in the appropriate manner to write a scientific paper since, perhaps, by citing unreferred references to the authors of manuscripts under review, they may disclose their identity in the review process and their loss of assured anonymity.

Recently, one report appeared in one of the most prestigious weekly medical journals indicating that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition therapy of patients with chronic renal failure will reduce "adrenergic hyperactivity."² The concept apparently was deemed so novel that an accompanying editorial commentary was included in that issue of the journal.³ No references included in either communication referred to the well-known and well-established phenomenon of angiotensin II augmentation of adrenergic activity in medullary centers or in ganglionic function.^{4 5} Only a few weeks after this publication, yet another paper was published in a "sister journal" of the American Heart Association indicating increased sympathetic nerve activity in patients with renovascular hypertension.⁶ Again, no evidence was provided in . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. D. Frohlich Professor John Douglas Swales Hypertension, May 1, 2001; 37(5): 1198 - 1198. [Full Text]