‘Audit ’ papers Sir,

I write to support your policy of accepting ‘audit’ papers. Having been editor of the Ulster Medical Journal (another of the diminishing group of general journals) for some time in the past I was accustomed to accepting these, although they often needed some tidying up. The main value of such a paper may initially appear to be to the author—both in gaining experience about the subject and in advanc-ing his/her contribution to the subject. Readers, and editors, also benefit, and sometimes administra-tors will act on a suitable publication, especially locally. There is, however, a wider consideration. Research should not be considered only as consist-ing of randomized clinical trials; having published in many journals over the past 50 years, I consider that clinical science has always included the accu-rate reporting of what has happened. When audit administrators appeared on the scene 10 or 15 years ago someone told them that audit was not research—the way round this is to offer ‘obser-vational studies’. These can be of a single case, or of thousands of cases. ‘The study of things caused must precede the study of the causes of things.’ Systematic reviews that refuse to document anything which is not somehow randomized leave that form of ‘research ’ entirely in the hands of the epidemiol-ogist and statistician. Clinical scientists still have the privilege of making the original observation, and the wise journal will support them and publish it