01-04-2017 | Original Article
What is the evidence? A call for scientific rigor
Fourteenth Annual Mario S. Verani, MD, Memorial Lecture
Published in: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology | Issue 2/2017
Login to get accessExcerpt
Thank you Ami for those kind words of introduction. During the 1980s, I interfaced extensively with Mario Verani. I can recall when he first told me that he was going to start working on adenosine for pharmacologic stress, which led to this landmark paper in Circulation.1 (Figure 1) Subsequently he, Frans Wackers, and I collaborated on the development of Tc-99m sestamibi for acute infarction imaging, which led to this paper on planar imaging2 (Figure 2) and this paper on SPECT imaging3 (Figure 3). My most extensive contact with Mario was when we both served on an ACCF/AHA Guidelines Committee on Radionuclide Imaging, which was chaired by Jim Ritchie and included Tim Bateman and Bob Bonow4 (Figure 4). Mario believed in scientific rigor. I believe that he would approve of my focus today on the need for scientific rigor in our field. In the first half of this lecture, I will focus on past lessons from these five areas (Table 1); in the second half of this lecture, I will apply these lessons to two promising new applications in our field.
Incremental value
|
Reclassification
|
Clinical action
|
Test variability
|
“Read the paper”
|