INDEPENDENT REVIEW NOT LACKING

Re: Independent study needed on injection sites (Letters, Sept. 12).

Letter writer Kjell Nilsen opined "What is lacking is an independent
evaluation of the Vancouver site and injection sites in general."

The external evaluators of the Vancouver site recently explained in
Open Medicine, a peer-reviewed, independent, open access journal,
"the Vancouver SIF evaluation was designed to stand up to the highest
level of scientific scrutiny. Specifically, the following safeguards
were put in place. First, a regional SIF oversight committee was
developed which included senior members of all stakeholders groups,
including the chief of the Vancouver police department and the
provincial medical health officer. Second, in accordance with the
Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs
(TREND) criteria for observational research, it was required that the
methodology for the evaluation be subject to external peer review to
ensure scientific rigour, and publication to ensure scientific
openness. Finally, it was required that all findings of the
evaluation be subject to external peer review and publication prior
to dissemination, and many of these studies were published in top
journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine."

Citations are customary in peer-reviewed journals, but they are not
typically found in letters-to-the-editor.

Dr. Keith Martin probably hoped that interested readers would take
the time to independently investigate what research has been done on
the Vancouver site and supervised injection facilities in general
before jumping to the conclusion that independent evaluations are lacking.

Matthew M. Elrod

Victoria