This Article  • References  • 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?

Mark A. Thompson, MD
George Washington University Medical Center Washington, DC

JAMA. 1993;270(15):1809-1810.

	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 study by Moss et al¹ on the prognostic value of noninvasive testing after coronary events is a well-conceived but misinterpreted study. In the study and in a front-page newspaper story, Moss² said these tests "failed to pinpoint those most at risk," that "Hillary Clinton would be very pleased with the results," and suggested that up to $1 billion a year is wasted on these "unnecessary tests." These gross generalizations are not supported by their data.

First, we are told briefly that ischemia on the resting ECG, exercise ECG, and thallium tests was in fact associated with a (statistically significant?) increased rate of cardiac events defined in the traditional manner of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [PTCA]). Only when revascularization was not considered an end point did these associations lessen. Patients revascularized . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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