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  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David H. Spodick, MD
Boston

JAMA. 1970;213(8):1344.

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

To the Editor.—

The article by Sheldon et al on venous autografts for myocardial revascularization (213: 78, 1970) records a magnificent surgical series from the standpoint of concept and technical ability. Yet the very appealing evidence for success remains inconclusive. Where are the control patients? Surgery is a form of therapy, not a magical process. It must be evaluated like other treatments and by equally high standards, ie, by minimizing bias through random allocation of "qualifying" patients to control and treated groups.

It is equally deplorable that in the same issue (QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, p 135) Dr. Baue's evaluation of various forms of revascularization is devoid of any reference to the lack of control. My criticism of the surgical enthusiasts is not that they are wrong (or even probably wrong), but rather that they have not attempted to really prove themselves right. Their technical and professional expertise are not in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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