Letters
ing to electrocardiographic artifacts.1 Pourdjabbar et al underlined that in the diagnosis process ECG testing is only 1 piece of the overall puzzle, which is correct. However, I disagree with their take-home point that biomarkers are essential in the diagnosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions and for making clinical decisions for these patients. The use of biomarkers are clearly pointed out in the American College of Cardiology Foundation guidelines2 and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.3 It is known that biomarker (eg, troponin) elevation is delayed and can be missed in cases of early presenters. Furthermore, because the goal of STsegment elevation management is prompt reperfusion, waiting for the results of biomarkers before initiating reperfusion treatment would only worsen prognosis. Guillaume Leurent, MD Author Affiliation: Departement de Cardiologie et Maladies Vasculaires, CHU de Rennes, Rennes, France. Corresponding Author: Guillaume Leurent, MD, Departement de Cardiologie et Maladies Vasculaires, CHU de Rennes, 2 Rue Henri Le Guilloux, Rennes, France 35000 ([email protected]). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported. Editorial Note: This letter was shown to the corresponding author of the original article, who declined to reply on behalf of the authors. 1. Pourdjabbar A, Green MS, Nery PB. ST-segment elevation interpretation on electrocardiogram: to cath or not to cath? JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10): 1695-1697. 2. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):e78-e140. 3. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, et al; Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(20):2569-2619.
CORRECTION Incorrect Sentences in Discussion: In the Original Investigation entitled “Effect of Discontinuation of Antihypertensive Treatment in Elderly People on Cognitive Functioning—the DANTE Study Leiden: A Randomized Clinical Trial” published online August 24, 2105, and in the October 2015 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine,1 incorrect sentences appeared in the Discussion section. In the fourth paragraph of the Discussion, the last sentence, which was given as “Finally, by performing neuroimaging, we were able to assess the influence of cerebrovascular disease and CBF in a subset of participants.” should be replaced with “Finally, by performing neuroimaging in a subset of participants we were able to assess the effect of discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in those persons with more cerebrovascular disease and/or lower cerebral blood flow at baseline.” Also, in the fifth paragraph, the fourth sentence, which was given as “Finally, by performing neuroimaging in a subset of participants we were able to assess the effect of discontinuation of
284
antihypertensive treatment in those persons with more cerebrovascular disease and/or lower cerebral blood flow at baseline.” should be replaced with “Finally, the DANTE trial investigated the effect of complete or partial discontinuation of different classes of antihypertensive treatment to achieve an increase in blood pressure.” This article was corrected online. 1. Moonen JEF, Foster-Dingley JC, de Ruijter W, et al. Effect of discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in elderly people on cognitive functioning— the DANTE Study Leiden: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175 (10):1622-1630. Error in Wording in the Abstract and Methods Section and Reworded Figure 2 Title and Caption: In the article by Sheridan et al1 titled “A Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Alternate Formats for Presenting Benefits and Harms Information for Low-Value Screening Services: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” published online on December 28, 2015, and in the January 2016 print issue, editorial errors occurred in the text in the abstract and Methods section. In the abstract (Design, Setting, and Participants and also Results), the 4 intervention arms were not described consistently as follows: words, numbers, numbers plus narrative, and numbers plus framed presentation. In the Potential Moderators of Intervention Impact subsection of the Methods section, the descriptions of the variables have been updated to aid in readability. In Figure 2, the title was updated to more accurately reflect the figure, and the Information Exposure Score information was deleted from the caption because it does not pertain to the figure. The article was corrected online on January 5, 2016. 1. Sheridan SL, Sutkowi-Hemstreet A, Barclay C, et al. A comparative effectiveness trial of alternate formats for presenting benefits and harms information for low-value screening services: a randomized clinical trial [published online December 28, 2015]. JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001 /jamainternmed.2015.7339. Correction to Introduction and Figure: In the Research Letter by Cullen et al1 published online December 7, 2015, the word “public” should have been deleted from the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article. In the Figure, the values in the key should have read “
ing to electrocardiographic artifacts.1 Pourdjabbar et al underlined that in the diagnosis process ECG testing is only 1 piece of the overall puzzle, which is correct. However, I disagree with their take-home point that biomarkers are essential in the diagnosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions and for making clinical decisions for these patients. The use of biomarkers are clearly pointed out in the American College of Cardiology Foundation guidelines2 and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines.3 It is known that biomarker (eg, troponin) elevation is delayed and can be missed in cases of early presenters. Furthermore, because the goal of STsegment elevation management is prompt reperfusion, waiting for the results of biomarkers before initiating reperfusion treatment would only worsen prognosis. Guillaume Leurent, MD Author Affiliation: Departement de Cardiologie et Maladies Vasculaires, CHU de Rennes, Rennes, France. Corresponding Author: Guillaume Leurent, MD, Departement de Cardiologie et Maladies Vasculaires, CHU de Rennes, 2 Rue Henri Le Guilloux, Rennes, France 35000 ([email protected]). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported. Editorial Note: This letter was shown to the corresponding author of the original article, who declined to reply on behalf of the authors. 1. Pourdjabbar A, Green MS, Nery PB. ST-segment elevation interpretation on electrocardiogram: to cath or not to cath? JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10): 1695-1697. 2. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al; American College of Emergency Physicians; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):e78-e140. 3. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, et al; Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(20):2569-2619.
CORRECTION Incorrect Sentences in Discussion: In the Original Investigation entitled “Effect of Discontinuation of Antihypertensive Treatment in Elderly People on Cognitive Functioning—the DANTE Study Leiden: A Randomized Clinical Trial” published online August 24, 2105, and in the October 2015 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine,1 incorrect sentences appeared in the Discussion section. In the fourth paragraph of the Discussion, the last sentence, which was given as “Finally, by performing neuroimaging, we were able to assess the influence of cerebrovascular disease and CBF in a subset of participants.” should be replaced with “Finally, by performing neuroimaging in a subset of participants we were able to assess the effect of discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in those persons with more cerebrovascular disease and/or lower cerebral blood flow at baseline.” Also, in the fifth paragraph, the fourth sentence, which was given as “Finally, by performing neuroimaging in a subset of participants we were able to assess the effect of discontinuation of
284
antihypertensive treatment in those persons with more cerebrovascular disease and/or lower cerebral blood flow at baseline.” should be replaced with “Finally, the DANTE trial investigated the effect of complete or partial discontinuation of different classes of antihypertensive treatment to achieve an increase in blood pressure.” This article was corrected online. 1. Moonen JEF, Foster-Dingley JC, de Ruijter W, et al. Effect of discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in elderly people on cognitive functioning— the DANTE Study Leiden: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175 (10):1622-1630. Error in Wording in the Abstract and Methods Section and Reworded Figure 2 Title and Caption: In the article by Sheridan et al1 titled “A Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Alternate Formats for Presenting Benefits and Harms Information for Low-Value Screening Services: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” published online on December 28, 2015, and in the January 2016 print issue, editorial errors occurred in the text in the abstract and Methods section. In the abstract (Design, Setting, and Participants and also Results), the 4 intervention arms were not described consistently as follows: words, numbers, numbers plus narrative, and numbers plus framed presentation. In the Potential Moderators of Intervention Impact subsection of the Methods section, the descriptions of the variables have been updated to aid in readability. In Figure 2, the title was updated to more accurately reflect the figure, and the Information Exposure Score information was deleted from the caption because it does not pertain to the figure. The article was corrected online on January 5, 2016. 1. Sheridan SL, Sutkowi-Hemstreet A, Barclay C, et al. A comparative effectiveness trial of alternate formats for presenting benefits and harms information for low-value screening services: a randomized clinical trial [published online December 28, 2015]. JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001 /jamainternmed.2015.7339. Correction to Introduction and Figure: In the Research Letter by Cullen et al1 published online December 7, 2015, the word “public” should have been deleted from the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article. In the Figure, the values in the key should have read “
