Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor are no longer included in the main BJUI journal, but we will continue to publish them on the BJUI website as an important part of the scientific debate.

Letters Policy

  • Letters to the editor will now published in electronic form on the journal website (www.bjuinternational.com), not in the journal itself. As such, letters are not submitted to PubMed for indexing.
  • Letters to the editor should be 500 words or less, preference is given to concise letters.
  • Writers are limited to one letter published on the website per month.
  • Letters must include full author contact details.
  • All letters will be peer-reviewed, and we reserve the right to reject letters, or to edit them if they are accepted.
  • If accepted, letters are sent to the authors of the paper being discussed, to give them the chance to make a response that will (if accepted) be published at the same time as the letter.
  • Letters will not be open for public comment; replies must be submitted by email to the Editorial Office for review.

Re: “Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower-pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomized controlled trial”

Letter to the Editor Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower-pole renal calculi: an international multicenter randomized controlled trial Dear Sir, We are interested to read the study by Zeng et al. [1] and appreciate the authors for their study showing that super-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) was more effective than retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) to treat 1-2 cm lower-pole renal calculi in terms…

Re: Does the introduction of prostate multiparametric MRI into the active surveillance protocol for localized PCa improve patient re-classification?

Letter to the Editor Does the introduction of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into the active surveillance protocol for localized prostate cancer improve patient re-classification? Dear Sir, Recently Bryant and colleagues published an important series on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer [1]. The work was deservedly highlighted as Paper of the Week for its potential impact on clinical practice. Meanwhile,…

RE: National implementation of multi-parametric MRI for prostate cancer detection – recommendations from a UK consensus meeting

/
Letter to the Editor National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection – recommendations from a UK consensus meeting [1] Dear Sir, Appaya et al report on an expert consensus meeting regarding the implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for prostate cancer detection [1]. A key item related to ‘who can request an mpMRI’ for patients with suspicion of prostate cancer. The panel unanimously agreed that GPs…

RE: National implementation of multi-parametric MRI for prostate cancer detection – recommendations from a UK consensus meeting

Letter to the Editor National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection – recommendations from a UK consensus meeting [1] Dear Sir, We congratulate the authors for their efforts in standardising prostate mpMRI. However, we are concerned that the consensus as reported may place substantial pressure on the diagnostic pathway in a rapidly evolving field. Most departments in the West of Scotland and the UK are striving to offer a routine pre-biopsy…

Meta-analysis of HIV-acquisition studies incomplete and unstable

Letter to the Editor Re: Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HIV Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis Sir, The authors of a recent meta-analysis[1] of studies into male circumcision and HIV describe their findings as “compelling.” We disagree. They reported a remarkably high degree of inconsistency with 97% of variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance (an astounding, rarely seen, level of heterogeneity). Using recently described methods[2], 28.57% of the studies would…
© 2020 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.