In Reply We appreciate the response to our recent publication1 by Hoffman and colleagues on behalf of the ROMICAT investigators and are particularly grateful to them for making the data from ROMICAT II2 publicly available for analysis by independent investigators without conflict of interest or a technology-specific agenda. Hoffman et al claim that the patients randomized to the standard evaluation arm who did not undergo testing were, at some point, reevaluated and found to be at such low risk that testing was felt unnecessary. We are unable to find evidence in the trial protocol2 of any process for reevaluation of patients once they were consented and randomized. In fact, the protocol specifically states “…only patients in whom the ED [emergency department] attending feels that further inpatient testing is required will be included.”2
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.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Brown DL, Reinhardt SW, Lin C. Incorrect Conclusions of a Secondary Analysis—Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(4):582–583. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0203
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: