Download PDFPDF

A case of insufficient evidence equipoise: the NICE guidance on antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infective endocarditis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Provincial Letter - a reply to Shaw and Conway


    The reply of Shaw and Conway[1] is certainly impassioned albeit somewhat diffuse. The diffuse nature is exposed by the fact that they make several arguments ad hominem e.g. the proposition that "Mohindra believes that logic should play no part in assessments of evidence" which is both an argument ad hominem and not predicated on any statements made. Although such arguments might have...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Provincial Letter - a response to Shaw and Conway


    The reply of Shaw and Conway[1] is certainly impassioned albeit somewha...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Evidence, Equipoise & Endocarditis: Reply to Mohindra
    • David M Shaw, Lecturer in Ethics
    • Other Contributors:
      • David I Conway


    RK Mohindra's recent paper criticises NICE's decision-making regarding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis. He is also critical of our defence of NICE, but does not actually engage with our argument, stating simply that he was "surprised" to see a philosophical defence of something that should be decided by evidence. We find it surprising that Mohindra believes that...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.