Clinical chemists are extremely knowledgeable on a wide variety of topics and provide a valuable service. So what is the problem?
They tend to live in their own world and are reluctant to consider ideas from outside of this bubble. Here are some examples.
Top-down measurement uncertainty – I sent a letter to the editor about a paper which talked about the top-down method for estimating measurement uncertainty. My letter was rejected rather strongly so it is on my blog here. Rejected perhaps because after all, the top-down method is part of an ISO standard (20914). To recall, their top-down method is to run some controls. Here is what a real top-down method entails.
Commutability – There were three articles in Clinical Chemistry, (and later a fourth article) produced by an IFCC committee. These articles explained how to estimate commutability and why it is important. I prepared a critique of these articles and did not get anywhere in trying to publish it. So, my critique is here.
Bland-Altman plots – Bland-Altman plots (difference plots) are well known to clinical chemists. I tried to publish a letter suggesting (with simulation examples) that when X is a reference method, the difference should be plotted against X, not (X+Y)/2. No clinical chemistry journal would accept it – it was accepted in Statistics in Medicine 2008;27:778-780.
Clinical Chemistry Journal – I published a letter in Clinical Chemistry in response to an expert panel’s discussion about glucose meter specifications: Wrong thinking about glucose standards. Clin Chem, 2010;56:874-875. I would like to think that this letter helped to change the next version of the ISO 15197 glucose standard. The problem is that these days Clinical Chemistry no longer will consider letters to anything in Clinical Chemistry other than a technical article. This means that about half of the journal’s content is off limits. The editor of Clinical Chemistry reasoned that their content is sufficiently vetted. IMHO, this is unscientific and elitist.
