RSSeNEWS to be determined...

A formal complaint to the ombudsman of the independent medical journal The Lancet cites analysis from an article published by Straight Statistics as evidence. In that article Straight Statistics' Nigel Hawkes criticised a World Health Organisation (WHO) study comparing the risks of elective caesarean births with vaginal births.

The complaint, by Penny Christensen, executive director of Birth Trauma Canada, questions how The Lancet’s peer review process gave the WHO paper's findings a green light and why The Lancet did not report criticisms of the WHO's analysis. Christensen asserts that the study was subject to obstetrical bias.

In an article on Straight Statistics about the complaint (4 August 2010), Nigel Hawkes says that The Lancet editor refused to consider his original analysis – which Christensen had incorporated into her criticisms – as evidence because it had not been peer-reviewed: “We are a scientific journal and as such prefer to see the scientific debate continued by reference to other academic articles that have been peer-reviewed” said The Lancet.

The WHO study, 'Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007—08' was reported in The Lancet on 6 February. The study concluded that women who elect for a caesarean delivery when there is no medical requirement run about three times more risk of death or complications compared to women giving birth by vaginal delivery.

In his original report, Funny Figures from WHO on Caesareans, Nigel Hawkes said that "close examination of the actual figures suggests that this is an extraordinary conclusion to have drawn, in no way justified by the evidence ... The statistical analysis is almost certainly where the error arose. Did no referee raise the alarm?" he wrote, adding that the comparison made by the authors "is an unfair one".

Hawkes worried that as the conclusions had been published in The Lancet they had "every chance of being taken seriously". Mainstream media reporting of the study following its publication in The Lancet demonstrated that Hawke's concerns were justified.

Hawkes says it is odd to claim that Straight Statistics articles cannot be considered on their own merits, adding that he hopes  The Lancet’s Ombudsman "will not seek to hide behind this defence".