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?

Edwin J. Zarling, MD
University of Illinois Hospital Chicago

Harold Sexton, MD; Pervis Milnor, Jr, MD
Baptist Memorial Hospital Memphis

JAMA. 1984;251(17):2208.

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

In Reply.—

Regarding the concerns voiced by the letters of Dr Huiras and by Ina Van Hest and Dr Zoraster, we agree that the percentages are misleading and only the zero-zero figures should have been used.

In regard to the letter by Dr Beach Conger, our purpose was to demonstrate the tendency of physicians to rely on technical aids for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and their reluctance to make such a diagnosis in the absence of laboratory substantiation regardless of whether such lack of substantiation was due to (1) insufficient enzymes to evaluate, (2) enzymes that did not reach twice normal values, or (3) cases in which there was no change in enzyme values. The same philosophy would seem to apply to all three circumstances, namely, without laboratory confirmation, regardless of cause, there is physician reluctance to make a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.

As mentioned in the article, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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