This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Original Article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Informatics/ Internet in Medicine  • Internet  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Cardiovascular System  • Statistics and Research Methods  • JAMA Classics  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Humanities  • History of Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Commentary by Drummond Rennie, MD; Iain Chalmers, MB, BS

JAMA. 2009;301(17):1819-1821.

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

SUMMARY OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts: Treatments for Myocardial Infarction

Elliott M. Antman, MD, Joseph Lau, MD, Bruce Kupelnick, Frederick Mosteller, PhD, and Thomas C. Chalmers, MD

JAMA. 1992;268(2):240-248

At the beginning of the 1990s, Antman and a team led by Tom Chalmers and Fred Mosteller used retrospective cumulative meta-analysis to show that the treatment recommendations of authorities in review articles and textbook chapters published over the previous 30 years had not reflected the best contemporary research evidence. These gaps between evidence and advice, which had sometimes lasted more than a decade, meant that both effective and dangerous treatments had been overlooked. The article by Antman et al published in JAMA in 1992 provided powerful evidence that traditional, unsystematic, narrative reviews did not serve patients well, and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

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