2015
DOI: 10.1111/jch.12666
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Raising the Bar in Renal Sympathetic Denervation Research and Reporting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 79 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, I had been critical of safety-related nomenclature used in a multitude of reviews and commentaries addressing earlier trials of renal sympathetic denervation, and also critical of efficacy claims made in the broad literature based on studies (SYMPLICITY HTN-1 2 and SYMPLICITY HTN-2 3 ) whose designs did not legitimately permit such claims. 4,5 SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED's design 6 had the inherent ability to permit the claims of efficacy made in this case, and I was pleased to see that the nomenclature used in the reporting of safety issues was conservative and appropriate. After first providing some context, this Editorial summarizes the results presented, and also represents a plea for those writing (or about to write) journal articles addressing the latest developments in this field to avoid using the single, emphatic descriptor "safe.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, I had been critical of safety-related nomenclature used in a multitude of reviews and commentaries addressing earlier trials of renal sympathetic denervation, and also critical of efficacy claims made in the broad literature based on studies (SYMPLICITY HTN-1 2 and SYMPLICITY HTN-2 3 ) whose designs did not legitimately permit such claims. 4,5 SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED's design 6 had the inherent ability to permit the claims of efficacy made in this case, and I was pleased to see that the nomenclature used in the reporting of safety issues was conservative and appropriate. After first providing some context, this Editorial summarizes the results presented, and also represents a plea for those writing (or about to write) journal articles addressing the latest developments in this field to avoid using the single, emphatic descriptor "safe.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%