English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Controversial issues need proper discussion, both in science and clinical medicine. Sometimes the interpretation of the available data is complex and not suitable for dissemination through the internet.1We have just experienced such a case with regards to an opinion piece on beta-blockers in perioperative care published in ‘CardioPulse’, which had failed to undergo peer review that is required for opinion pieces, if scientific statements affecting clinical practice are involved.2 Due to the far-reaching conclusions of the authors based on a meta-analysis published by the same authors, bloggers blew their message into the wind immediately.1 Within minutes and certainly within the hour, the possible consequences of their statements grew almost exponentially in blogs.The editorial office of the European Heart Journal is aware of its responsibility and reacted accordingly: (i) the online version of the article was immediately retracted; (ii) a retraction notice was placed in the next available issue of the printed version; (iii) both part I and the unpublished part II of the article were sent to five senior reviewers of the highest standing; (iv) the comments of the reviewers were sent to the authors and they were offered the opportunity to resubmit a revised and more balanced version on a de novo basis; and finally (v) the Editor-in-Chief informed the author of one of the beta-blocker trials,3 who was heavily criticized in the article, that the European Heart Journal does not support the conclusions of this inadvertently published feature.There is no doubt that clinical research can be erroneous for several reasons.4–6 Recommendations for practising clinicians have to be continuously adapted due to the ongoing adaptation or refutation of previous assumptions, studies, and/or trials. The data itself may be erroneous for a variety of reasons. In principal, this reflects the …

Is the panic about beta-blockers in perioperative care justified?