Clear, efficient communication is a central aim of any scientific report. Clarity, however, can readily be lost when, as authors, we employ our individual literary style, omit detail that we but not the reader take “as read”, present information in long sections without subheadings, and expand reports with comment that relates more to the general topic than the specifics of the study. Following peer review a common request to authors from editors is firstly, to include more detail in the methods and results sections, and secondly, to remove extraneous information and extrapolation from the discussion. Peer review and revision, however, do not always result in optimal presentation of information. There is often disparity between what a study should report and what is actually published. In the case of randomised controlled trials (RCT) this presents important problems for inclusion in systematic reviews¹ and the balanced appraisal of knowledge that may determine clinical practice.

The continuing education of investigators is clearly important if we are to maintain high …