This Article Order Full text via Infotrieve Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ware, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ware, J. H.

Circulation, Vol 65, 32-36, Copyright © 1982 by American Heart Association

ARTICLES

Comparison of medical and surgical management of coronary artery disease: methodologic issues

JH Ware

Coronary artery bypass surgery has been recommended for patients with a wide variety of signs, symptoms, and medical histories. Investigators have used historically controlled studies, registries and randomized clinical trials to compare the efficacy of medical and surgical management of coronary artery disease in well-defined patient groups. Historically controlled studies offer a weak basis for inference because of rapid changes in medical practice and in the prognosis for patients with coronary artery disease. Randomized trials are the ideal method for comparing therapies, but only a few trials, in highly selected patients, have been completed. Thus, registry studies provide an important part of the currently available evidence. In this paper, the strengths of randomized and registry studies are compared and the need for "meta-analyses" that integrate the evidence from both types of study is discussed. The institutional variation in surgical mortality and its implication for treatment strategy are also discussed.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Shapiro, K. A. Narahara, and J. Park Improved Exercise Myocardial Perfusion During Lidoflazine Therapy Angiology, November 1, 1983; 34(11): 705 - 710. [Abstract] [PDF]