This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Education  • Neurology  • Cerebrovascular Disease  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: I believe that the Commentary by Drs Gallagher and Cates on virtual reality training¹ was misleading in a number of ways. The title "Approval of Virtual Reality Training for Carotid Stenting: What This Means for Procedural-Based Medicine" appears to suggest that there has actually been some approval of virtual reality training. However, this is not the case, and I am not aware of any published trial or even case report regarding virtual reality training in relation to carotid stenting, despite the tone of the article indicating that this is an accepted practice.

The citations are not appropriate for the statements they are intended to support. Apart from 2 studies related to laparoscopic surgery, the references in support of virtual reality training are opinion pieces rather than peer-reviewed scientific investigations. The authors also cite a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel meeting in April 2004² at which . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Jonathan Hartman, MD
jonathan.hartman@ucdmc.edu
Department of Radiology
University of California, Davis Medical Center
Sacramento

RELATED ARTICLES

Virtual Reality Training for Carotid Stenting—Reply
Anthony G. Gallagher and Christopher U. Cates
JAMA. 2005;293(17):2091-2092.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Approval of Virtual Reality Training for Carotid Stenting: What This Means for Procedural-Based Medicine
Anthony G. Gallagher and Christopher U. Cates
JAMA. 2004;292(24):3024-3026.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT