{"id":36675,"date":"2016-05-16T13:49:36","date_gmt":"2016-05-16T12:49:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?p=36675"},"modified":"2016-05-16T13:49:36","modified_gmt":"2016-05-16T12:49:36","slug":"richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"Richard Lehman’s journal review\u201416 May 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"richard_lehman\"NEJM<\/em> 12 May 2016 Vol 374<\/strong>
\nSmoake is dangerous to ye<\/sup> Lungs<\/span>
\n1811 A new study of smokers with preserved pulmonary function finds that<\/a> a lot of them have lung symptoms. And even if they don\u2019t fulfil the criteria for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), they still experience the familiar pattern of exacerbations and limitation of activity and end up using the same medications as people with COPD. Nothing has changed in the 412 years since King James I of England declared smoking to be \u201cA custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.\u201d<\/p>\n

Caregivers of critically ill, a year later<\/span>
\n1831 Here\u2019s a nice example of research based on the \u201csubjective\u201d experiences of real people<\/a>, which is published in the NEJM<\/em> because it hides its qualitative heart beneath a cloak of conventional sampling methods and statistics.\u00a0The people described are caregivers (60% spouses, 70% women) of patients who had received seven or more days of mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 10 Canadian hospitals. Anyone who has been in this situation will know how stressful it can be, and the net effect of prolonged severe stress in most people is what we label as depression. The bottom line of this study is that 67% of caregivers had high levels of depressive symptoms one week after patients were discharged from ICU, and 43% still had these at one year. These are useful figures, signifying a massive and enduring burden to thousands of individuals. But if you really want to know what it feels like to look after someone who has been in ICU, you\u2019ll get a much better idea from the qualitative research that went into the collection of interviews from the\u00a0Oxford Health Experiences Research Group<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Childhood asthma & later on<\/span>
\n1842 I\u2019ve just seen a retweet of Stephen Senn\u2019s 2014 classic: \u201cI\u2019ve been studying statistics for over 40 years and I still don\u2019t understand it. The ease with which non-statisticians master it is staggering.\u201d I feel the same about the diagnosis of asthma in children, or the differentiation between chronic asthma and COPD in adults. Why, after 40 years, do I find it so difficult, when so many others blithely pin on the labels and prescribe away? I think it\u2019s the idolatry of the surrogate, in yet another guise. If the practice nurse, using a machine, has put down certain figures for peak flow or FEV1 on a certain day, then these numbers trump any amount of history taking or reassessment. And once \u201cpreventive\u201d treatment has been started, it is a brave doctor who stops it. And yet there is definitely a true syndrome of chronic asthma in children, which we understand poorly. Back in the 1990s, the CAMP trial used fairly rigorous selection criteria to select children with persisting asthma to receive treatment with inhaled budesonide, nedocromil, or placebo. These kids have been followed up ever since. The treatments made no difference to their long term lung function<\/a>. Just 25% of them showed the normal increase in lung function followed by an early adult plateau and then slow decline. A quarter\u00a0of them showed the increase, followed by an earlier decline. The remaining quarters either had an impaired increase followed by early decline, or an impaired increase followed by no early decline. By the time they reached 26, 11% of the cohort met the standard criteria for COPD. These long term data on natural history are very welcome, but they don\u2019t fill me with hope that the classification and treatment of childhood asthma will be sorted in my lifetime.<\/p>\n

A cathedral of data<\/span>
\nThere are an awful lot of articles awaiting publication on the NEJM<\/em> website, but I\u2019ll just make brief mention of a newly arrived quartet on the subject of data sharing. Ever since the famous \u201cdata parasites\u201d editorial<\/a>, the journal has shown a certain unease on the subject, which is not much allayed by these new articles. They are long on the problems and short on the solutions that\u00a0already exist. The longest is a description of how data sharing might look<\/a> if a new entity called Vivli (sic) was created by a Harvard group to house and curate databases from all sorts of research bodies\u2014industrial, academic, charitable etc.
\nThis kind of \u201ccathedral of data\u201d is exactly what the world should be starting to build. Cathedrals often take a few hundred years to complete, and that is fine: after all, scientific medicine as we know it is only about 150 years old. The Yale Open Data Access project has been going for four years and I\u2019m delighted and privileged to be part of it. I\u2019m an apprentice mason learning on the job. Perhaps if Vivli is to get started, it will need to begin this way. Plans alone will not build it.<\/p>\n

JAMA<\/em> 10 May 2016 Vol 315<\/strong>
\n68 Strategies for precision medicine<\/span>
\n1941 There are two prevailing visions of the future of medicine. One is that we are nearing the limits of what is possible using a top-down, innovation driven approach to single diseases, and that we will learn how to care for people better if we step back, question many types of disease category, accept uncertainty, and listen to the varied and ever changing stories and priorities of individual patients. The other vision is called \u201cprecision medicine\u201d or \u201cbench-to-bedside\u201d medicine, where the personalisation of medicine is not seen in terms of ever changing stories and priorities at all, but as never changing genomic patterning, with treatments tailored to match. Neither approach is complete, and in fact the deterministic element in \u201cprecision medicine\u201d is finding itself under attack from genomics itself. Is there a grand unifying theory of medicine that unites the two?
\nHere is an open access article called \u201cConvergence of Implementation Science, Precision Medicine, and the Learning Health Care System<\/a>.\u201d I was taught English by strict Yorkshire schoolmasters over 50 years ago and I\u2019m subject to piercing, toothache-like pain when chewing on sentences such as \u201cThe vision of the learning health care system can address this, by repositioning the formal health care delivery sector as a set of nimble organizations that focus on ongoing system improvement by capturing data at the clinical encounter and using those data to inform ongoing clinical and community practice.\u201d I think this is meant to mean \u201cLearn from your successes and failures,\u201d though I may not have fully captured the focus on its nimbleness. I am relieved to learn later that \u201c68 strategies, grouped into 6 different categories\u2014planning, education, financing, restructuring, quality management, and attention to policy contexts\u2014offer promise to support genomics implementation in a range of health care systems.\u201d That means it cannot possibly ever happen. But perhaps with just one, or at most two, strategies based on internalised values, a fruitful combination of patient priority setting and therapeutics can be achieved. And every now and again, genomics might come in handy for that.<\/p>\n

Apple juice to keep the doctor away<\/span>
\n1966 Here\u2019s a \u201cRandomized, single-blind noninferiority trial conducted between the months of October and April<\/a> during the years 2010 to 2015 in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Study participants were children aged 6 to 60 months with gastroenteritis and minimal dehydration.\u201d These little ones with mild D&V were randomised to an electrolyte replacement mix or dilute apple juice. They tended to prefer the latter, and thanks to this teaching hospital trial we can rest content in the knowledge we already had: that kids in rich countries with mild D&V get better whatever they are given or choose to drink.<\/p>\n

BMI news from Denmark<\/span>
\n1989 Last week<\/a> I commented on The BMJ<\/em>\u2019s long term study of BMI in the population, which I tweeted out as \u201cPeople who stay slim all their lives live longest. We must try not to hate them.\u201d I promised not to report any more such studies unless they favoured weight gain. I haven\u2019t had long to wait. A study of three cohorts from Copenhagen shows that over nearly three decades<\/a>, the BMI associated with greatest longevity drifted upwards from 23.7 to 27. I think I was that once.<\/p>\n

JAMA Intern Med<\/em> May 2016 Vol 176<\/strong>
\nDoor knobs, toilet seats, & MRSA<\/span>
\nOL In my childhood, antibiotics were new and germs were still greatly feared. They were divided into family germs, which were harmless and could be shared by eating the same bit of cake, versus other people\u2019s germs, which were disgusting and could kill you if you weren\u2019t careful with door knobs, toilet seats, or even public library books. Obviously, \u201cgood homes\u201d would be less of a risk than places frequented by the lower classes. I\u2019m reminded of this by a study from Columbia University Medical Center<\/a>, which sought to determine the role of household contamination in recurrent community acquired MRSA infection. All household members from the dwellings of 82 index patients were swabbed and so were door knobs, the television remote, the living room light switch, toys, the couch, the computer or radio, the house telephone or index cellular phone, the bathroom sink, the toilet seat, the kitchen towel, and kitchen appliance handles. Thirteen out of 35 patients with recurrent MRSA infection came from the 20 households found to be \u201cdirty,\u201d as opposed to the 62 that\u00a0were \u201cclean.\u201d You can never be too careful.<\/p>\n

Lancet<\/em> 14 May 2016 Vol 387<\/strong>
\nParenteral diclofenac for renal colic<\/span>
\n1999 Apologies if I\u2019ve told you this before, or if it\u2019s more than you need to know. I get ureteric colic every three to four years. Over the years I\u2019ve found that diclofenac works better and longer than opioids, provided it\u2019s given deep in the gluteal muscle or per rectum. This is generally true and has been known for over 20 years. I\u2019m surprised that a trial comparing parenteral morphine, paracetamol, or diclofenac for \u201crenal\u201d colic<\/a> in Qatar was deemed worthy of publishing in the Lancet<\/em> in 2016. Two points to remember though in connection with NSAIDs for acute severe pain. One: the more rapidly they act, the better they work\u2014so oral preparations are largely useless. Two: there is now a formulation of diclofenac that\u00a0can be given subcutaneously, so avoiding the need for deep IM injection, which I find myself unable to do to myself while rolling on the floor.<\/p>\n

Human but acellular dialysis access<\/span>
\n2026 I normally avoid Lancet<\/em> articles that hype bionic advances, but I do sympathise with renal doctors who have to find new modes of access to be able to haemodialyse very sick patients. A novel bioengineered human acellular vessel implanted into the arm seems to hold promise<\/a>, and for once I won\u2019t moan about a phase 2 trial appearing in this august journal, as precursor to a full trial.<\/p>\n

Hysteroscopic futility<\/span>
\nOL I don\u2019t know how common it is for fertility clinics to carry out routine hysteroscopy before IVF. But judging from a pair of trials on the Lancet<\/em> website, it is time they stopped. The Dutch inSIGHT trial shows that<\/a> routine hysteroscopy does not improve live birth rates in infertile women with a normal transvaginal ultrasound of the uterine cavity scheduled for a first IVF treatment. A cross-European trial called TROPHY shows that<\/a> outpatient hysteroscopy before IVF in women with a normal ultrasound of the uterine cavity and a history of unsuccessful IVF treatment cycles does not improve the live birth rate. So this procedure should go on the Choosing Wisely bin list for NHS gynaecology, and anyone being charged for it privately should contest their invoice.<\/p>\n

The BMJ<\/em> 14 May 2016 Vol 353<\/strong>
\nDietary association studies & breast cancer<\/span>
\nSay you want to show an association between some disease and lifestyle choices in a free living population. You\u2019ll need a cohort with lots of accurate data and complete follow-up. You\u2019ll need to think of every possible confounding factor. But since you can\u2019t actually do that, you\u2019ll need to widen your confidence intervals and be very humble about your findings. In a Danish study of postmenopausal women over a five year period<\/a>, \u201cresults support the hypotheses that alcohol intake is associated with increased risk of breast cancer and decreased risk of coronary heart disease.\u201d Well, yes, but remember that self-reported alcohol intake in the population accounts for about one third of actual alcohol sales. If you want an even more inaccurate dietary measurement, ask people about their fruit and vegetable intake when in their teens<\/a>. Then match that with their incidence of breast cancer. Why? You can\u2019t build anything on studies like these. You can only count them up and see how many agree with your preconceived ideas.<\/p>\n

OL Some friends across the Atlantic have said they\u2019re looking forward to my comments on the analysis article alleging that medical error is the third commonest cause of death in the US<\/a>. I am afraid I shall have to disappoint them. I think I have already been beastly enough to The BMJ<\/em> for one week.<\/p>\n

Plant of the Week: Magnolia<\/em> \u201cYellow Fever\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

We were arrested by the sight of this beautiful tree in one of the most beautiful places in the world: the gorge of Bodnant gardens in North Wales. \u201cWhat a terrible name,\u201d said my wife, and so it is. Perhaps Magnolia<\/em> \u201cDengue Fever\u201d will follow.<\/p>\n

Hardy, deciduous, yellow flowered magnolias have been around for about 60 years, although they are still uncommon in British gardens. The first was \u201cElizabeth,\u201d a hybrid between M denudata<\/em> and M acuminata<\/em> (1956). It is still one of the best, free flowering and beautifully scented. \u201cYellow River\u201d is much more recent, and has so much denudata<\/em> in its parentage that it is sometimes classed as a variety of the species. \u201cYellow Fever\u201d is another cross with acuminata<\/em>, again with pale cream flowers. All of them are lovely, but if you want a deeper yellow you may be best with \u201cYellow Bird,\u201d a cross between acuminata<\/em> and a hybrid known as M.x brooklynensis<\/em> \u2018Evamaria.\u2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NEJM 12 May 2016 Vol 374 Smoake is dangerous to ye Lungs 1811 A new study of smokers with preserved pulmonary function finds that a lot of them have lung […]<\/p>\n

More…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":38363,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-richard-lehmans-weekly-review-of-medical-journals"],"yoast_head":"\nRichard Lehman's journal review\u201416 May 2016 - The BMJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Richard Lehman's journal review\u201416 May 2016 - The BMJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NEJM 12 May 2016 Vol 374 Smoake is dangerous to ye Lungs 1811 A new study of smokers with preserved pulmonary function finds that a lot of them have lung [...]More...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The BMJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-05-16T12:49:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/richard-lehman.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"540\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"350\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"BMJ\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@bmj_latest\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@bmj_latest\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"BMJ\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"BMJ\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe\"},\"headline\":\"Richard Lehman’s journal review\u201416 May 2016\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-05-16T12:49:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2337,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/richard-lehman.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Richard Lehman's weekly review of medical journals\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/\",\"name\":\"Richard Lehman's journal review\u201416 May 2016 - The BMJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/richard-lehman.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-05-16T12:49:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/richard-lehman.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2017\\\/02\\\/richard-lehman.jpg\",\"width\":540,\"height\":350},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/2016\\\/05\\\/16\\\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Richard Lehman’s journal review\u201416 May 2016\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\",\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"description\":\"Helping doctors make better decisions.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/files\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg\",\"width\":852,\"height\":568,\"caption\":\"The BMJ\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/bmjdotcom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/bmj_latest\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe\",\"name\":\"BMJ\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"BMJ\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.bmj.com\\\/bmj\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Richard Lehman's journal review\u201416 May 2016 - The BMJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Richard Lehman's journal review\u201416 May 2016 - The BMJ","og_description":"NEJM 12 May 2016 Vol 374 Smoake is dangerous to ye Lungs 1811 A new study of smokers with preserved pulmonary function finds that a lot of them have lung [...]More...","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/","og_site_name":"The BMJ","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/","article_published_time":"2016-05-16T12:49:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":540,"height":350,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/richard-lehman.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"BMJ","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@bmj_latest","twitter_site":"@bmj_latest","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"BMJ","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/"},"author":{"name":"BMJ","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/person\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe"},"headline":"Richard Lehman’s journal review\u201416 May 2016","datePublished":"2016-05-16T12:49:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/"},"wordCount":2337,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/richard-lehman.jpg","articleSection":["Richard Lehman's weekly review of medical journals"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/","name":"Richard Lehman's journal review\u201416 May 2016 - The BMJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/richard-lehman.jpg","datePublished":"2016-05-16T12:49:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/richard-lehman.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2017\/02\/richard-lehman.jpg","width":540,"height":350},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2016\/05\/16\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-16-may-2016\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Richard Lehman’s journal review\u201416 May 2016"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/","name":"The BMJ","description":"Helping doctors make better decisions.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#organization","name":"The BMJ","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2018\/05\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/files\/2018\/05\/The-BMJ-logo.jpg","width":852,"height":568,"caption":"The BMJ"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/bmjdotcom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/bmj_latest"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/#\/schema\/person\/ba3da426ed20e8f1d933ca367d8216fe","name":"BMJ","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b4d8f39281bcae118348a1c027347b8e53b82d42520e774a8b50dd9a6ac6c01d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"BMJ"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36675\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38363"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}