Paul M. Ridker, MD; Christopher J. O'Donnell, MD; Victor J. Marder, MD; Charles H. Hennekens, MD
Open and informed evaluation of study results is essential to advancing scientific understanding, particularly in large-scale trials (such as the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries [GUSTO] trial), which may affect clinical treatment and public health.
In this article, we discuss alternative interpretations of the GUSTO findings, the problems inherent in any unblinded trial, and the need for more complete analysis and reporting of data so that the four different thrombolytic regimens tested in GUSTO can be adequately compared with one another.We conclude that, based on all the available evidence, any differences among individual drugs in terms of efficacy or safety are small and are less clinically important than is the wider use and more rapid delivery of thrombolytic therapy with any of the available agents.
Paul M. Ridker, Christopher J. O'Donnell, Victor J. Marder, Charles H. Hennekens. A Response to “Holding GUSTO Up to the Light”. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:882–885. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-10-199405150-00010
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(10):882-885.
Acute Coronary Syndromes, Cardiology, Coronary Heart Disease, Emergency Medicine, Neurology.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2017 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use