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?

Francesco P. Cappuccio, MD, MSc
St George's Hospital Medical School London, England

JAMA. 1996;276(17):1385-1386.

	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 Dr Bucher and colleagues¹ adds more confusion and raises more questions than ever on the issue of whether calcium supplementation lowers blood pressure. Yet again, the new meta-analysis claims better quality of methods as compared with previous ones,^2,3 while at the same time, another meta-analysis is published in a different medical journal.⁴ Is there any value in overloading the scientific literature with reiterated attempts to reanalyze the evidence, agreeing that the effect is small, if any, and that the results do not have any practical importance to justify recommendations to the public at large?

The article by Bucher et al contains a number of errors and misquotes. The statement that "[p]revious overviews of randomized trials of calcium supplementation and blood pressure were not comprehensive" is incorrect. Neither previous overviews nor the study by Bucher et al has included all potential . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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