[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 134
Citations 0
Comment & Response
April 2018

Incorrect Conclusions of a Secondary Analysis

Author Affiliations
  • 1Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
  • 2Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland
  • 3Division of Cardiology, Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(4):581-582. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0212

To the Editor The Original Investigation by Reinhardt et al1 that was published in a recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine used publicly available data from the National Institutes of Health–funded Rule Out Myocardial Infarction Using Computed Assisted Tomography (ROMICAT) II Trial (NCT01084239). The premise of this post hoc analysis was to compare process and health outcomes between patients who did and did not receive risk stratification beyond the initial emergency department (ED) evaluation. Reinhardt et al1 stated that patients without further testing have similar outcomes compared with those who did and concluded that further testing was not useful. We, on behalf of the original ROMICAT II investigators, strongly disagree.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words