You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 301 No. 1, January 7, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Revascularization
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Surgery
 •Surgical Interventions
 •Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Cardiovascular Intervention
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Outcomes in the Era of Bare-Metal Stents vs the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents

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: Dr Malenka and colleagues1 described the protective effect of drug-eluting stents against repeat revascularization procedures by comparing frequency of revascularization in the bare-metal stent era to the frequency after drug-eluting stents came on the market. In doing so, they took a step back from the exposure itself—drug-eluting vs bare-metal stent—and instead implicitly used the era as a proxy for the stent exposure. Presumably, they did this because they believed that the exposure to drug-eluting stent would be confounded by unmeasured factors that they could not adjust for with the available data.

A factor that is related to exposure but does not confound the outcome, via either measured or unmeasured paths, is an instrumental variable.2 From the study by Malenka et al, stenting era may well be an instrumental variable for the confounded exposure of stent type, particularly if underlying trends in care that may have affected the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Jeremy A. Rassen, ScD
jrassen@post.harvard.edu

Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Outcomes Following Coronary Stenting in the Era of Bare-Metal vs the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents
David J. Malenka, Aaron V. Kaplan, F. Lee Lucas, Sandra M. Sharp, and Jonathan S. Skinner
JAMA. 2008;299(24):2868-2876.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Outcomes in the Era of Bare-Metal Stents vs the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents
Abhimanyu Beri
JAMA. 2009;301(1):33.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Outcomes in the Era of Bare-Metal Stents vs the Era of Drug-Eluting Stents—Reply
David J. Malenka, Jonathan S. Skinner, and F. Lee Lucas
JAMA. 2009;301(1):34.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.