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 342:1447-1448 May 11, 2000 Number 19 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 Grines, C. L.

To the Editor: Grines et al. (Dec. 23 issue)¹ found that the benefit of coronary stenting after myocardial infarction was attributable only to the marked decrease in the rate of revascularization at six months. However, the unblinded study design may have biased decisions about revascularization in a way that could have favored the stent group. Did the independent clinical-events committee assess the appropriateness of the revascularization procedures used? Were the patients who did not undergo revascularization assessed for potential underuse of these procedures? Before worrying about the ethics of withholding stents from patients with acute infarction, the investigators should first . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.