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):2209-2210.

	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.—

In regard to Lawrence K. Altman's interesting speculation and question, we have not done the alternative study, namely, to determine how frequently the diagnosis of myocardial infarction is made but not confirmed by autopsy. In autopsied cases, records can be retrieved only by use of the corrected diagnosis as established by the autopsy; the determination of antemortem diagnoses would require a careful study of the records of all patients whose autopsy diagnosis was not acute myocardial infarction—a much more time-consuming process than the published study and one that has not been done.

It is purely impression, but we suspect that the number of incorrect diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction would certainly equal the number of cases in which actual myocardial infarction was missed; hence, the two errors could counterbalance one another and the changing autopsy percentages could be expected to have little effect on changing rates of cardiovascular . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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