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

See Editor-in-Chief’s Note, page 3116. To the Editor:In the recent article by Ginsberg,1 the author advances several statements that are clearly incorrect. Additionally, the author impugns the critique written by one of us, the editorial by another one of us and aspects of the SAINT clinical trial program. We feel it appropriate to respond to these allegations and mis-statements. The author states that the critique by Hess and editorial by Fisher appeared in a section of Stroke coedited by Dr Lees, the first author of the SAINT-I article that was the subject of these 2 articles, implying impropriety.2,3 In fact, on the page preceding the article submitted by Hess in April 2006, the Editor-in-Chief of Stroke , Dr Hachinski, clearly states that Dr Lees’ appointment as section coeditor for Emerging Therapies began on July 1, 2006 and that “Dr Lees had nothing to do with the choice or editing of these articles.”4 No impropriety occurred. Another mis-statement by Dr Ginsberg is “Given the marginal findings and questionable methods of SAINT I, it is natural to question the wisdom of the rationale …

Issues Pertaining to the Critiques of the SAINT-I Trial