This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Vladimir Hachinski, MD, DSc (Med)

Arch Neurol. 1990;47(10):1140.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

When I first invited a controversy on the management of low-grade glioma, I had difficulty finding two contributors who would argue contrary views. The two individuals who finally agreed to address the issue discussed it with each other and coauthored a consensus.

Declaring a consensus invites its overthrow. Although Shaw's arguments do not rebut the position argued and reaffirmed by Cairncross and Laperriere, his arguments do provide a rationale for a more aggressive approach.

Where there is uncertainty about the outcome, controlled studies are justified. Probably all contributors would agree on the need to test their respective approaches prospectively. In this we may have reached yet another consensus, subject to further controversy.— . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?