 |
|
Inconsistency in the Editorial Process in Archives of Internal Medicine?
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
As with all medical journals with a good reputation, the Archives of Internal Medicine also chose to publish an editorial about the adverse cardiovascular effects of coxibs.1 It was published on January 24, 2005. However, it is with great concern that one reads the following statement1(p159):
On the other hand, when physicians and patients see no alternative to a coxib, they can take some comfort in the apparent safety record of celecoxib so far. Numerous randomized controlled trials and observational studies have found no elevated risk of cardiovascular events with this agent.
This indicates that the Archives of Internal Medicine was not aware of the National Cancer Institute announcement on December 17, 2004, releasing information that the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) trial had been prematurely terminated owing to a significant excess of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke.2 An editorial on this was even published in JAMA in . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Nina H. Bjarnason, MD, DMSc, MFPM
RELATED ARTICLES
Inconsistency in the Editorial Process in Archives of Internal Medicine?—Reply
Daniel H. Solomon and Jerry Avorn
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(12):1440.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Inconsistency in the Editorial Process in Archives of Internal Medicine?—Reply
Philip Greenland
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(12):1440.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Coxibs, Science, and the Public Trust
Daniel H. Solomon and Jerry Avorn
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(2):158-160.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
