I find it amusing when reputable news sources are caught in sloppy reporting--especially when it comes to medical study results. I should be keeping a running tab, but I just don't have 45 hours in a day. So I'll just tell you about the latest. This past Sunday, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled, "Large Study Questions Value Of Stents." To help you read through the hype: the study (BARI 2D) does not conclude that stents are valueless. It concludes that stent use (with drug therapy) on type II diabetics with ischemia is no better than drugs alone. These results are similar to a study (Courage) released in 2007. My favorite part in the text is when author Jared Favole says, "The study. . .will surely be hotly debated among leading stent makers such as Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and Abbot Laboratories Ltd. (ABT), and the broader medical community." However, he later reports that " Abbott Laboratories doesn't expect the study to 'have any impact on stent volumes,'" Yep. That's a hot debate alright. To be thorough, some question the study's design, saying that the rigorous drug therapy patients in the study received bears little resemblance to real-world scenarios. It requires strict adherence to a schedule and a generous health insurance policy. Favole was able to find someone to make the leap to comparative effectiveness, saying, "The study also highlights the important role comparative effectiveness research plays in making medical decisions, said Dr. Richard Kahn, chief scientific and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association. . . . Kahn said this study 'is what comparative effectiveness is all about.'" I'd argue that comparative effectiveness only works on populations that represent the as many people as possible. A study on the subgroup of a subgroup of patients can't be used to draw wide conclusions. Heather Thompson