Letters
The correspondence column. Roughly a thousand readers write to the Journal each month; a fraction are printed here with the writer’s initial and city, and the desk replies where a reply is owed. Factual challenges go to the standards editor first.
Recently printed
All 3,703 letters →On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026
Hand hygiene before anything else is the single highest-yield step in every published account of technique in any setting, and it is the step most often skipped because it is the least visible.
— T. Kaminski, Bydgoszcz
On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026
Sharps disposal is not an afterthought and the article treats it as one. A rigid container, obtained before it is needed rather than after, is the whole of the advice, and it belongs at the start of the sequence rather than at the end.
— T. Oyelowo, Abeokuta
The desk replied.
On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026
The unit confusion in this area is a design problem rather than an education problem. A syringe graduated for one purpose, used to measure a volume of something else, will produce errors at a rate determined by the markings and not by the diligence of the person reading them.
— T. Wexford, Louisville, KY
The desk replied.
On “In-use periods, and the ones nobody can give you”, 28 Jun 2026
You recommend writing the concentration on the vial. I would add: write it on the box as well. My vial label came off in the fridge and I lost the only record of what diluent volume I had used.
— M. Sandhu, Amritsar
On “The named comparison we promised two years ago”, 28 Jun 2026
A methodological plea. Publish the purchase date, the arrival date and the determination date for every blind result. Without all three, a poor figure cannot be attributed between manufacture, freight and storage, and every party will attribute it wherever suits them.
— B. Ademola, Ilorin
On “The named comparison we promised two years ago”, 28 Jun 2026
The distinction that matters is not blind against named but who chose the sample. A blind submission of a vial the seller selected is not blind in any sense that protects the reader, and the word is doing all the work in that sentence.
— G. Szabó, Debrecen
The desk replied.
On “SURMOUNT-4 was built to answer the stopping question, and it did”, 27 Jun 2026
The trials are conducted with pharmaceutical-grade material under supervision. Whatever they establish, they establish about that material in that setting, and the extension of their findings to a research-supply context is an assumption rather than a result.
— L. Oyarzún, Concepción
On “SURMOUNT-4 was built to answer the stopping question, and it did”, 27 Jun 2026
I have read four of these studies and none reported what participants were told about the possibility of regain. Expectation is a variable in any outcome that includes behaviour, and it is entirely unmeasured across the set.
— F. Aubert, Toulouse