FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 358:405-407 January 24, 2008 Number 4 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Hannan, E. L. Related Article by Marroquin, O. C. PubMed Citation

Unlike jurors, clinicians frequently must make decisions without the luxury of the totality of evidence. When we speak of evidence-based medicine, it is important to remember that available data may be incomplete, outdated, and of questionable relevance to particular patients, especially those excluded from randomized trials. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the controversies surrounding the use of drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary disease.

Pivotal trials of drug-eluting stents reported significant reductions in the rate of repeat revascularization without excess adverse events in the first year after placement of the stent.^1,2 Although these randomized trials were well designed . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Source Information

From Harvard Medical School and the Cardiovascular Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center — both in Boston.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• (2008). Drug-Eluting Stents, Bare-Metal Stents, and Bypass Surgery. Journal Watch Cardiology 2008: 1-1 [Full Text]