Spengler responds

Abstract

I was pleased to have had the opportunity to provide a commentary in the June 2011 issue of The Spine Journal on the article in the same issue authored by Carragee et al. [ [1] Carragee E.J. Hurwitz E.L. Weiner B.K. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J. 2011; 11: 471-491 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1079) Google Scholar ] entitled “A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned.” Letter to the editor regarding “A critical review of recombinant human morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spine surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned”The Spine JournalVol. 12Issue 4PreviewThe article, “A critical review of recombinant human morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spine surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned,” by Carragee et al. [1] has created significant controversy. One concern by some readers is the editorial process of this manuscript. The difference between a standard newspaper or magazine and a scientific journal is critical peer review. This process needs to be blinded, fair, and critical. This is especially true when the author is the journal editor who could have an influence over the peer-review process. Full-Text PDF