Endoscopic Sclerotherapy for Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage

Robert S. Gordon; Bennett M. Derby; John P. Cello; James H. Grendell; Richard A. Crass; Donald D. Trunkey; Thorkild I.a. Sørensen; Peter Matzen; Flemming Burcharth; Bjørn Andersen

doi:10.1056/NEJM198504113121513

Endoscopic Sclerotherapy for Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage

Robert S. Gordon, Bennett M. Derby, John P. Cello, James H. Grendell, Richard A. Crass, Donald D. Trunkey, Thorkild I.a. Sørensen, Peter Matzen, Flemming Burcharth, Bjørn Andersen

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

To the Editor: How could the Journal, which six years earlier published a landmark paper on the need for adequate sample size in controlled clinical trials,¹ now publish without comment the paper by Cello et al. (Dec. 20 issue),² which overinterprets the negative results of a trial based on a very modest number of patients? These authors randomly assigned 52 patients to one of two alternative forms of treatment and “failed to demonstrate any significant difference in long-term survival. …” They go on to state that “acute and vigorously repeated endoscopic sclerotherapy is at least as good as, and.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	989-990
Number of pages	2
Journal	New England Journal of Medicine
Volume	312
Issue number	15
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198504113121513
State	Published - Apr 11 1985
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Medicine

Access to Document

10.1056/NEJM198504113121513

Cite this

@article{1f52f25ed10040a2a5682346cd4be1bc,

title = "Endoscopic Sclerotherapy for Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage",

abstract = "To the Editor: How could the Journal, which six years earlier published a landmark paper on the need for adequate sample size in controlled clinical trials,1 now publish without comment the paper by Cello et al. (Dec. 20 issue),2 which overinterprets the negative results of a trial based on a very modest number of patients? These authors randomly assigned 52 patients to one of two alternative forms of treatment and “failed to demonstrate any significant difference in long-term survival. …” They go on to state that “acute and vigorously repeated endoscopic sclerotherapy is at least as good as, and.",

author = "Gordon, {Robert S.} and Derby, {Bennett M.} and Cello, {John P.} and Grendell, {James H.} and Crass, {Richard A.} and Trunkey, {Donald D.} and S{\o}rensen, {Thorkild I.a.} and Peter Matzen and Flemming Burcharth and Bj{\o}rn Andersen",

year = "1985",

month = apr,

day = "11",

doi = "10.1056/NEJM198504113121513",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "312",

pages = "989--990",

journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",

issn = "0028-4793",

publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",

number = "15",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoscopic Sclerotherapy for Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage

AU - Gordon, Robert S.

AU - Derby, Bennett M.

AU - Cello, John P.

AU - Grendell, James H.

AU - Crass, Richard A.

AU - Trunkey, Donald D.

AU - Sørensen, Thorkild I.a.

AU - Matzen, Peter

AU - Burcharth, Flemming

AU - Andersen, Bjørn

PY - 1985/4/11

Y1 - 1985/4/11

N2 - To the Editor: How could the Journal, which six years earlier published a landmark paper on the need for adequate sample size in controlled clinical trials,1 now publish without comment the paper by Cello et al. (Dec. 20 issue),2 which overinterprets the negative results of a trial based on a very modest number of patients? These authors randomly assigned 52 patients to one of two alternative forms of treatment and “failed to demonstrate any significant difference in long-term survival. …” They go on to state that “acute and vigorously repeated endoscopic sclerotherapy is at least as good as, and.

AB - To the Editor: How could the Journal, which six years earlier published a landmark paper on the need for adequate sample size in controlled clinical trials,1 now publish without comment the paper by Cello et al. (Dec. 20 issue),2 which overinterprets the negative results of a trial based on a very modest number of patients? These authors randomly assigned 52 patients to one of two alternative forms of treatment and “failed to demonstrate any significant difference in long-term survival. …” They go on to state that “acute and vigorously repeated endoscopic sclerotherapy is at least as good as, and.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021917590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021917590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM198504113121513

DO - 10.1056/NEJM198504113121513

M3 - Letter

C2 - 3871912

AN - SCOPUS:0021917590

SN - 0028-4793

VL - 312

SP - 989

EP - 990

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

IS - 15

ER -

Endoscopic Sclerotherapy for Esophageal Variceal Hemorrhage

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this