This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The excellent review article by Weitz and Bates¹ that was published in the March 27, 2000, issue of the ARCHIVES is marred by one persistent misapprehension that has been difficult to delete from the medical literature. The authors continue to refer to the non–Q-wave myocardial infarction as if it were some kind of specific entity that is in some way different from the Q-wave variety. My colleagues and I published a review article that appeared in the February 1999 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that should help to put an end to this long-standing misapprehension.² Briefly, in our review, we found that all the studies, without exception, that alleged the "unstable" character of the non–Q-wave myocardial infarction were based on totally unacceptable research protocols. The chief sources of error were as follows:

• The studies compared random mixtures of first subsequent infarcts without specifying how many . . . [Full Text of this Article]