On 2013 Nov 14, James C Coyne commented:

Although not identified as such in PubMed, this article is an invited commentary on another article Hollingworth W, 2013.

The targeted article involved a reasonably conducted randomized trial that found that implementing routine screening for distress failed to reduce the distress of cancer patients and only minimally increased referrals to specialty psychosocial and mental health services. The article also concluded that screening was not cost-effective.

There is a paucity of such data available, even though crucial to evaluating the value of implementing screening versus alternative uses of resources. See http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2013/11/08/wheres-the-evidence-that-screening-for-distress-benefits-cancer-patients/

The commentary is quite negative, unfairly so, especially because the authors of the targeted article were not forewarned or given a chance to respond. The author of the commentary is a key proponent of routine screening for distress and took the occasion of an invited commentary to trash negative findings from a relatively well done study.

The commentary represents a post publication enforcement of the confirmatory bias generally required for screening articles to be published. The targeted article nonetheless got through peer review, but obviously the author of the invited commentary was forewarned and given an opportunity to neutralize its impact.

Eight of the 16 citations are to the author or a close collaborator’s work. Many do not present relevant data was seem relevant at all. I would consider some of them gratuitous self citations. And others seem to represent simply advocacy pieces, that are not evidence based.

Although this commentary appears in a paywalled journal, it can be freely accessed, whereas the targeted article is securely behind a paywall. This substantially adds to the unfairness of this commentary. You can readily access the commentary from PubMed, but cannot directly access the article that it harshly criticizes.

I have commented more extensively on this invited commentary and the target article in a PLOS Mind the Brain blog post < http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2013/11/13/2127/> The publishing of this invited commentary demonstrates a failure of prepublication peer review of the kind that post publication comments in PubMed Commons can remedy.

On 2013 Nov 14, James C Coyne commented:

Although not identified as such in PubMed, this article is an invited commentary on another article Hollingworth W, 2013.

The targeted article involved a reasonably conducted randomized trial that found that implementing routine screening for distress failed to reduce the distress of cancer patients and only minimally increased referrals to specialty psychosocial and mental health services. The article also concluded that screening was not cost-effective.

There is a paucity of such data available, even though crucial to evaluating the value of implementing screening versus alternative uses of resources. See http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2013/11/08/wheres-the-evidence-that-screening-for-distress-benefits-cancer-patients/

The commentary is quite negative, unfairly so, especially because the authors of the targeted article were not forewarned or given a chance to respond. The author of the commentary is a key proponent of routine screening for distress and took the occasion of an invited commentary to trash negative findings from a relatively well done study.

The commentary represents a post publication enforcement of the confirmatory bias generally required for screening articles to be published. The targeted article nonetheless got through peer review, but obviously the author of the invited commentary was forewarned and given an opportunity to neutralize its impact.

Eight of the 16 citations are to the author or a close collaborator’s work. Many do not present relevant data was seem relevant at all. I would consider some of them gratuitous self citations. And others seem to represent simply advocacy pieces, that are not evidence based.

Although this commentary appears in a paywalled journal, it can be freely accessed, whereas the targeted article is securely behind a paywall. This substantially adds to the unfairness of this commentary. You can readily access the commentary from PubMed, but cannot directly access the article that it harshly criticizes.

I have commented more extensively on this invited commentary and the target article in a PLOS Mind the Brain blog post < http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2013/11/13/2127/> The publishing of this invited commentary demonstrates a failure of prepublication peer review of the kind that post publication comments in PubMed Commons can remedy.