Dear colleagues,
I add to other previous comments the need we have to comply with strict criteria and, if possible, strongly substantiated with evidences and classical studies published previously before publishing articles in the Continuing Medical Education section.1 It is not suitable to teach neither new residents nor active colleagues concepts based on personal experiences.
Our mentors’ textbooks are not dead letters, particularly when regarding clinical observation and concepts of basic pathophysiology.
It scares me the poor quality of the articles recently published about Hansen’s disease in the Annals.
I know this is due to the very poor quality of laboratory tests performed today by general or clinical pathology.
Almost no one knows what Faraco-Fite is. And that is why patients are still classified according to the number of lesions, which is an aberration.
Previously acquired knowledge should not be neglected.
I suggest the editors send the articles to experienced and impartial reviewers for each subject, so that the real quality and relevance of what is intended to be published be evaluated.
