Few data have been collected on the use of debates as part of healthcare professional training. The impact of a debate on how pharmacy students feel about online pharmacy practice is described.

or cardiovascular death, so it would have been more appropriate to refer to a reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction, as opposed to cardiovascular events.Our third issue of concern relates to the data for myocardial infarction, which was 1 of 3 outcomes measured in the study. The authors reported a 0.6% reduction in this outcome among patients assigned to receive double-dose clopidogrel, relative to those receiving the standard dose. There are 2 reasons why we question the clinical importance of this result. First, the effect size was small and of debatable clinical importance. Second, it is possible that this finding is a false positive (type 1 error), as no p value adjustment was made for the multiple comparisons performed in the trial. 4 The authors also used a postrandomization subgroup of the overall trial population, which leads to additional risk of a type 1 error. 5Our fourth issue of concern is the lack of reporting of harm in the conclusion statements of the abstract and the full article, which might lead a reader to believe that there are no risks associated with the double-dose regimen. In fact, the incidence of major bleeding (as defined by the CURRENT-OASIS 7 authors) was higher in the double-dose group than the standard-dose group (1.6% versus 1.1%, hazard ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.83, p = 0.009).2 This represents a 0.5% absolute increase in the hazard of harm (major bleeding). The omission of this information from the concluding statements appears to be selective reporting, which is misleading.Our final issue of concern relates to the overall assessment of harm versus benefit. Specifically, the 0.6% reduction in risk of myocardial infarction would seem to be nullified by the 0.5% increase in the risk of major bleeding. Although some would argue that the benefit of preventing myocardial infarction outweighs the risk of a major bleeding event, these 2 outcomes are only a subset of the possible effects of the double-dose regimen. Returning to our first issue of concern, described above, a full analysis of serious adverse events could help in determining the net effect of the double-dose regimen and provide more confidence in saying whether the benefit outweighs the risk.Does this study provide enough information to support a double-dose regimen of clopidogrel? We're not convinced. Does something need to be done about the selective reporting of harm in conclusion statements? Absolutely.