To the Editor: Caplan et al1 include in their meta-analysis a trial by Mather et al that compared home care with intensive care management of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) between 1966 and 1968.2 A joint working party of the Royal College of Physicians and British Cardiac Society dismissed the results of this study because of design defects.3,4
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- 1. Caplan GA, Sulaiman NS, Mangin DA, et al. A meta-analysis of “hospital in the home”. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 512-519. <MJA full text>
- 2. Mather HG, Morgan DC, Pearson NG, et al. Myocardial infarction: a comparison between home and hospital care for patients. Br Med J 1976; 1: 925-929.
- 3. The care of the patient with coronary heart disease. Report of a joint working party of the Royal College of Physicians of London and the British Cardiac Society. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1975; 10: 5-46.
- 4. Hill JD, Hampton JR, Mitchell JRA. A randomised trial of home-versus-hospital management for patients with suspected myocardial infarction. Lancet 1978; 1: 837-841.
- 5. Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, et al. Alternative strategies for stroke care: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 894-899.
- 6. Rudd AG, Wolfe CDA, Tilling K, Beech R. Randomised controlled trial to evaluate early discharge scheme for patients with stroke. BMJ 1997; 315: 1039-1044.
- 7. Indredavik B, Fjaertoft H, Ekeberg G, et al. Benefit of an extended stroke unit service with early supported discharge: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 2000; 31: 2989-2994.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
No relevant disclosures.