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 334:55-56 January 4, 1996 Number 1 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 Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Drew, W. L.

To the Editor: We are troubled by the strong conclusion of Drew et al. (Sept. 7 issue)¹ that "oral ganciclovir is safe and effective as maintenance therapy for cytomegalovirus retinitis." This statement implies equivalence between intravenous and oral ganciclovir, which we believe is not convincingly supported by the data.

When there is no difference between the treatment groups, one does not accept the null hypothesis but rather fails to reject it. In other words, if the data show there is no difference between intravenous and oral ganciclovir, it does not imply they are equivalent but rather that there is not . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.