BMJ  2005;330:1366 (11 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7504.1366

Primary care

Risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based nested case-control analysis

¹ Institution 13th floor, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham NG2 7RD

Abstract

Aims To determine the comparative risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in primary care between 2000 and 2004; to determine these risks in patients with and without pre-existing coronary heart disease and in those taking and not taking aspirin.

Design Nested case-control study.

Setting 367 general practices contributing to the UK QRESEARCH database and spread throughout every strategic health authority and health board in England, Wales, and Scotland.

Subjects 9218 cases with a first ever diagnosis of myocardial infarction during the four year study period; 86 349 controls matched for age, calendar year, sex, and practice.

Outcome measures Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib, celecoxib, naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, and other selective and non-selective NSAIDS. Odds ratios were adjusted for smoking status, comorbidity, deprivation, and use of statins, aspirin, and antidepressants.

Results A significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction was associated with current use of rofecoxib (adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.61) compared with no use within the previous three years; with current use of diclofenac (1.55, 1.39 to 1.72); and with current use of ibuprofen (1.24, 1.11 to 1.39). Increased risks were associated with the other selective NSAIDs, with naproxen, and with non-selective NSAIDs; these risks were significant at < 0.05 rather than < 0.01 for current use but significant at < 0.01 in the tests for trend. No significant interactions occurred between any of the NSAIDs and either aspirin or coronary heart disease.

Conclusion These results suggest an increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with current use of rofecoxib, diclofenac, and ibuprofen despite adjustment for many potential confounders. No evidence was found to support a reduction in risk of myocardial infarction associated with current use of naproxen. This is an observational study and may be subject to residual confounding that cannot be fully corrected for. However, enough concerns may exist to warrant a reconsideration of the cardiovascular safety of all NSAIDs.

Introduction

Cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors are a selective type of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) developed for the treatment of acute inflammation in joints caused by arthritis without the gastrointestinal side effects associated with traditional NSAIDs.¹ Although evidence shows that COX 2 inhibitors are as effective as traditional NSAIDs in relieving pain,^{2 3} serious concerns about their cardiovascular safety have arisen. In the Vioxx gastrointestinal outcomes research (VIGOR) study, patients taking rofecoxib had a much higher risk of myocardial infarction than did patients taking the comparator drug (naproxen). Initially, suggestions were made that the difference was due to a cardioprotective effect of naproxen rather than a deleterious effect of rofecoxib.³ However, this is now known not to be the case, and Merck has very recently ordered an immediate worldwide withdrawal of rofecoxib because of its adverse cardiovascular profile.

Despite this, important questions remain about the safety of other COX 2 inhibitors. The major trials have excluded patients with coronary heart disease,⁴ and none (with the exception of the recently reported therapeutic arthritis research and gastrointestinal event trial⁵) has been designed to measure coronary end points. This has left a serious lack of evidence on the safety of COX 2 inhibitors in high risk patients with coronary heart disease,^{4 6-9} including those on aspirin. This is particularly important given the extent to which COX 2 inhibitors are now being used and that they are still recommended in guidelines for elderly patients.¹⁰

We did a population based nested case-control study using the new QRESEARCH database¹¹ to determine the comparative risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking COX 2 inhibitors and other NSAIDs in primary care between 2000 and 2004. We investigated the risk of myocardial infarction associated with these drugs in patients with and without pre-existing coronary heart disease and in those taking and not taking aspirin. Although this analysis was completed before the announcement of the withdrawal of rofecoxib and now valdecoxib, we think it sheds light on the risk profile of other NSAIDs, the use of which is likely to increase following the withdrawal of rofecoxib.

Method

Study population and data source
We used data from UK general practices contributing to the new QRESEARCH database (www.qresearch.org). This is a new clinical database containing the clinical records of more than 7 million patients ever registered with 468 practices over the past 16 years. The information recorded on the database includes demographics (year of birth, sex, socioeconomic data associated with postcode area), characteristics (height, weight, smoking status), symptoms, clinical diagnosis, consultations, referrals, prescribed drugs, and results of investigations. The database has been validated by comparing birth rates, death rates, consultation rates, prevalence, and mortality with other data sources including the general household survey and the general practice research database.¹² The age-sex structure of the population has been compared with that reported in the 2001 census. We found a good correspondence for all of these measures (results available on request), although in some instances our prevalence figures were marginally higher than less recent data.¹³ We have also compared practices taking part in regional research networks on these and other measures and found a good correspondence.¹⁴ Detailed analyses have shown good levels of completeness and consistency.¹⁵ Similar databases have been used for studies investigating risk factors for coronary heart disease or effects of conventional NSAIDs.^16-19 In previous studies, the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction has been confirmed by reviewing hospital discharge notes or comparison with the paper based records and found to be correct in more than 90% of cases.^18-20

The study period ran between 1 August 2000 and 31 July 2004 (the date of the most recent download of QRESEARCH data at the time of the analysis). We used this period as rofecoxib and celecoxib were both available on prescription in the United Kingdom.

Cohort definition
We selected practices that had their current Egton Medical Information Services (EMIS) computer system installed before 1 August 1999. We identified a cohort of patients registered on 1 August 2000 who had been registered for the whole of the preceding 12 months. Patients entered the study period on 1 August 2000 and left the risk period when they developed a myocardial infarction, died, or left the practice or when the study period ended, whichever was earlier.

We identified potential cases of acute myocardial infarction on the basis of a first time diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction recorded with appropriate Read codes during the four year study period. We excluded patients with a myocardial infarction before the start of the study period. We included in the cohort other patients with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease (but without mention of a myocardial infarction). We used this cohort to determine the incidence of myocardial infarction by age and sex.

Case-control analysis
Cases were all patients aged 25 to 100 with a first ever myocardial infarction identified in the cohort analysis. We included patients who had a diagnosis of myocardial infarction recorded as the cause of death. We matched up to 10 controls to each case by age, calendar time, sex, and practice by using incidence density sampling. All controls were alive and registered with the practice at the time their matched case had the myocardial infarction. We derived an index date for each control, which was the date of myocardial infarction of their matched case. We excluded cases and controls who had less than three years of computerised prescribing data available before their index date to ensure that the prescribing data were complete.

Assessment of exposure
We used standardised computerised routines to extract and code data on the medical history and use of prescribed drugs before the index date for each set of cases and controls. We identified all prescriptions for selective and non-selective NSAIDs in the three years before their index date. Twenty seven different NSAIDs were in use during the study period. We grouped the drugs as follows: celecoxib, rofecoxib, ibuprofen, diclofenac (including combination preparations), naproxen, other selective NSAIDS (meloxicam, etoricoxib, etodolac, valdecoxib), and other non-selective NSAIDs. We compared the prescribing rates for each drug per 1000 population with data from the prescribing cost analysis tool (PACT) for 2002 for drugs prescribed by general practice and dispensed in the community and found similar rates and rank order for the preparations.

For each drug group we identified the first and last prescription date and the total number of prescriptions issued in the three years before the index date. We coded the time since last prescription as not prescribed within the past three years, prescribed within 90 days (defined as current use), or prescribed more than 90 days ago. We categorised the total number of prescriptions for each drug group as zero, one to three, and more than three prescriptions. We tested for trend by using the actual number of prescriptions issued within the three year period. General practitioners in the United Kingdom issue patients with sufficient drugs to last one calendar month, so one prescription is approximately equivalent to one month of treatment.

Statistical analysis
We used conditional logistic regression for individually matched case-control studies to derive odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for myocardial infarction associated with each of our drug groups. We made adjustments for possible confounding effects of smoking (smoker, not smoker, not recorded), comorbidity (diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity), and deprivation in fifths. We used the Townsend score based on the 2001 census related data associated with the output area of each patient's postcode as a measure of deprivation.²¹ We categorised obesity as body mass index (kg/m²) less than 30, 30 or more, or not recorded. We also adjusted for the use of other drugs known to affect the risk of myocardial infarction or to be commonly associated with use of NSAIDS—namely, antidepressants¹⁶ (selective serotonin uptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants separately) and statins.²² We also adjusted the results for each drug group for the other NSAID groups.

We calculated the numbers needed to harm by applying the incidence of first myocardial infarction per 1000 using the adjusted odds ratio from current usage of drugs. We calculated this separately for all patients aged 25 and over and for those aged 65 and over. We calculated approximate 95% confidence intervals. We examined two way interactions between different NSAIDs and aspirin and coronary heart disease. We fitted a second model restricted to cases and controls with complete data for smoking status and body mass index. We fitted a third model restricted to patients without either coronary heart disease or diabetes in order to reduce possible effects of residual confounding.²³ We used Stata (version 8.2) for all the analyses. We selected a P value of 0.01 (two tailed) as significant.

Results

We used the fourth version of the QRESEARCH database for this analysis. We identified 9218 cases with a first ever myocardial infarction between the ages of 25 and 100 (63.1% men). We matched these by age, calendar time, sex, and practice to 86 349 controls, which gave an average of 9.4 controls for each case. The median number of months of prior data available was 86 (interquartile range 63-117). The crude incidence of myocardial infarction was 1.71 per 1000 person years for patients aged 25 years and over, rising to 4.57 per 1000 person years for patients aged 65 years and over.

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of cases and their controls. Cases and controls were well matched for age, sex, and the number of months of previous data available for analysis. As expected, a higher proportion of cases were smokers, were obese, and had comorbidities. Cases also tended to be from slightly more deprived areas than controls.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1 Characteristics of cases and matched controls. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise

 

Table 2 shows the pattern of use of the different drug groups in cases and controls. Table 3 shows the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for myocardial infarction associated with current use of each type of NSAID. The unadjusted analysis showed that each drug group was associated with a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction. In the multivariate analysis, we adjusted for potential confounders (smoking status, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, deprivation (fifth of Townsend score), and use of selective serotonin uptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, statins, and aspirin). Table 3 shows that the use of rofecoxib within the previous three months was associated with a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.61), as was use of ibuprofen (1.24, 1.11 to 1.39) and diclofenac (1.55, 1.39 to 1.72).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2 Cases and controls with prescriptions for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within previous three years. Values are numbers (percentages)

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3 Odds ratios for use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within previous three years for cases and controls

 

Use of other selective NSAIDs within the previous three months was also associated with a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction in the unadjusted analysis (unadjusted odds ratio 1.55, 1.25 to 1.92). The magnitude of the odds ratio was reduced after adjustment for potential confounders (adjusted odds ratio 1.27, 1.00 to 1.61). Similarly, we found a tendency to increased risks for use of naproxen and other non-selective NSAIDs within the previous three months, as shown in table 3. The numbers needed to harm for use of each drug within the previous three months for patients aged 65 years and over were 521 (95% confidence interval 355 to 866) for diclofenac, 1005 (569 to 3089) for ibuprofen, and 695 (344 to 3841) for rofecoxib. For patients aged 25 and over the numbers needed to harm were 2444 (1504 to 5332) for ibuprofen, 1066 (815 to 1504) for diclofenac, and 1833 (961 to 6517) for rofecoxib.

Table 3 also shows the adjusted odds ratios for patients whose last prescription was more than three months before the index date. Apart from one category of drugs (the other selective NSAIDs), the odds ratios were all above one and ranged from 1.05 to 1.18.

We repeated the analyses, restricting them to cases and controls with complete data for smoking and body mass index and obtained similar odds ratios for all the drugs except for naproxen, for which the adjusted odds ratio for use within the previous three months was 1.42 (1.09 to 1.85), and the group of other non-selective NSAIDs, for which the adjusted odds ratio for use within the previous three months was 1.11 (0.90 to 1.37). We also restricted the analysis to patients aged 65 and over; the odds ratios were similar for all the drugs except the group of other non-selective NSAIDs, for which the adjusted odds ratio for use within the previous three months was 1.14 (0.93 to 1.24)

We repeated the analysis again, restricting it to patients without either coronary heart disease or diabetes. This did not affect the odds ratios substantially, apart from use of celecoxib within the previous three months (adjusted odds ratio 1.02, 0.74 to 1.39).

We examined the odds ratios for myocardial infarction associated with increasing numbers of prescriptions for each of the drugs. We found highly significant tests for trend, with increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with increasing number of prescriptions for diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, and other NSAIDs. The adjusted odds ratio for more than three prescriptions compared with no prescriptions were 1.46 (1.33 to 1.60) for diclofenac, 1.14 (1.03 to 1.27) for ibuprofen, 1.27 (1.06 to 1.53) for naproxen, and 1.28 (1.12 to 1.47) for other non-selective NSAIDs. We found no clear pattern for rofecoxib (test for trend = 0.13).

We found no significant interactions between any NSAID and aspirin, indicating that the risk of myocardial infarction for each NSAID does not vary according to whether aspirin is prescribed. Similarly, we found no significant interactions between any NSAID and coronary heart disease, although the odds ratios tended to be higher in patients without pre-existing coronary heart disease.

Discussion

We have reported the results of a large population based nested case-control study designed to investigate the risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking COX 2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs. This was an observational study, and we were able to include patients at high risk and substantial numbers of patients taking aspirin. Our most important consistent finding was a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking three specific drugs—rofecoxib, diclofenac, and ibuprofen. This was despite adjustment for potential confounders, including comorbidity (such as pre-existing coronary heart disease) and current use of other drugs. Current use of these drugs was associated with a 24-55% increase in risk of myocardial infarction after adjustment for potential confounders. Stratification by the number of prescriptions did not yield materially different results from the analysis based on current use. No significant interactions occurred between any NSAID and either aspirin or pre-existing coronary heart disease.

Our numbers needed to harm show that for every 695 patients aged 65 and over taking rofecoxib, one additional patient would have a first myocardial infarction in a year. For ibuprofen, one additional myocardial infarction would happen for every 1005 patients aged 65 and over, and for diclofenac the figure would be one additional myocardial infarction for every 521 treated patients. Given the high prevalence of the use of these drugs in elderly people and the increased risk of myocardial infarction with age, even the relatively large number of patients needed to harm could have considerable implications for public health.

We also found a similar increase in risk with other selective NSAIDs, with naproxen, and with other non-selective NSAIDs, although the results reached only the 0.05 significance level on multivariate analysis rather than our prespecified level of 0.01. This probably reflects the relatively small number in each of the subgroups. We found no significant increase in cardiovascular risk associated with use of celecoxib, although the odds ratios were of similar magnitude to those observed with other drugs.

We found no evidence to support the hypothesis, proposed by the authors of the VIGOR trial, that naproxen actually lowers the risk of a myocardial infarction.³ This lack of a cardioprotective effect for naproxen in our study is consistent with other studies that have failed to find any protective effect for naproxen and a recent meta-analysis.^{24 25} We found one study that suggested a weak protective effect of naproxen for acute myocardial infarction, but the detailed analysis failed to show any proximity-response relation between exposure to naproxen and acute myocardial infarction.²⁶ All these studies, however, were done before data on COX 2 inhibitors were available.^{17 24 26}

Comparison with other studies
We found evidence to suggest an increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking ibuprofen, diclofenac, and rofecoxib and possibly also those taking other selective and non-selective NSAIDs. Patients currently taking ibuprofen had a 24% increased risk of an infarct, and patients who had been on ibuprofen for longer had higher risks. These findings are consistent with those of Ray et al, who reported an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction associated with use of ibuprofen in a high risk population over the age of 50.²⁴ Patients taking diclofenac had a 55% increased risk of myocardial infarction, which is similar to that reported in a much smaller study of non-selective NSAIDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis conducted on data from the general practice research database.²⁷

Other observational studies conducted before data on COX 2 inhibitors were available reported increased risks of first time myocardial infarction associated with non-selective NSAIDs similar to the risks reported in our study. For example, Schlienger et al reported an adjusted odds ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.57) for acute myocardial infarction in patients at low risk taking non-selective NSAIDs.¹⁷ However, the analysis did not adjust for the potential confounding effect of socioeconomic status, as this information was not available.

Our study included younger patients and longer follow-up than has been possible before.²⁸ In addition, we had information on obesity, smoking, deprivation, and an important range of comorbidities. Rates of prescription of aspirin in the study population were also sufficient for us to adjust for its potential confounding effect and do analyses in patients taking aspirin compared with those not taking aspirin, which has not been possible before.²⁸ We have reported high levels of comorbidity in both cases and controls, which underlines the need to investigate the risks and benefits of new treatments in elderly populations at high risk, especially given that many trials are not designed to detect adverse effects or exclude high risk patients.^{9 29}

Discussion of methods
This is an observational study and therefore at risk of bias and confounding. For example, some confounding by indication could be present, such as if patients have been prescribed NSAIDs for chest pain that was actually angina. If this had been the case, we would have expected the results to apply equally to all drug groups in our analysis. Similarly, we considered whether channelling might be an explanation for our results.³⁰ Patients who are more at risk of a myocardial infarction may be more likely to be prescribed a COX 2 inhibitor than patients at lower risk. Our analysis included adjustment for many potential confounders, including comorbidity, concurrent drug use, and deprivation, and we expect this to have minimised the impact of any channelling.

Our cases and controls were well matched on age, sex, practice, and calendar time, making this an effective design to assess the effects of different NSAIDs on risk of myocardial infarction. This approach allowed us to examine timing and duration and also to investigate interactions with aspirin and coronary heart disease. Our outcome (whether patients had a myocardial infarction or not) is likely to be well recorded on the general practice clinical databases, especially as the study period coincided with the publication of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, which prioritises recording of cardiovascular disease, especially myocardial infarction.³¹ Apart from an analysis of the number of prescriptions (which can be used as a proxy for cumulative dose), we did not analyse dose. Although data on prescribed dose are available on the QRESEARCH database, we did not think that this would necessarily correlate well with the number of tablets taken by patients, as this can vary day to day according to levels of pain.

No recall bias occurred, as the exposure data were recorded on computer before the date of myocardial infarction. In addition, we included only patients who had been registered with the practice for the entire observation period in order to ensure that the prescribing data were complete. Misclassification of exposure status (that is, use of drugs) is unlikely, as more than 99% of all repeat prescriptions by general practitioners are recorded on computer because these drugs are not currently available in the UK without prescription. Ibuprofen is the only NSAID available without prescription, so some patients obtaining ibuprofen over the counter might have been misclassified as not being on ibuprofen. This is likely to be a small proportion in patients over 65 years, as they are entitled to free prescriptions in the United Kingdom and so tend to have drugs prescribed rather than buy them separately. Our results for ibuprofen were similar in an analysis restricted to patients aged 65 and over. Also, such misclassification, if present and if non-differential, would have had the effect of biasing the odds ratio towards one, making the exposure seem less harmful than it really is.³² Although we have adjusted for several confounding variables, some residual confounding may result from misclassification of those variables and confounding by unmeasured variables.

Conclusions
Since we completed this analysis, Merck has announced the immediate worldwide withdrawal of rofecoxib because of its adverse cardiovascular profile. Since we submitted this manuscript, adverse cardiovascular effects have been reported with both celecoxib and valdecoxib. Our study offers no reassurance that the increased risk of myocardial infarction is specific to rofecoxib alone or specific to COX 2 inhibitors. Indeed, we found similar effects with two commonly used non-selective NSAIDs (diclofenac and ibuprofen). We saw similar odds ratios for naproxen, other selective NSAIDs, and celecoxib, although the results did not reach the 0.01 significance level. This could be because of the relatively low usage of these drugs, which is likely to increase now that rofecoxib has been withdrawn. Lastly, we found no evidence to support a reduction in risk of myocardial infarction associated with naproxen.

This is an observational study and may be subject to residual confounding that we cannot fully correct for. However, we think that enough concerns exist to warrant a reconsideration of the cardiovascular safety of all NSAIDs.

What is already known on this topic The VIGOR study found that rofecoxib was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction compared with naproxen Uncertainty existed as to whether this reflected a true increase or an apparent increase due to a cardioprotective effect of naproxen Rofecoxib has been withdrawn, but uncertainty persists about the cardiovascular safety of the other selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) What this study adds Rofecoxib, diclofenac, and ibuprofen were associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction; no evidence of a cardioprotective effect for naproxen was found The increased risk with rofecoxib in the VIGOR study was genuine; the toxicity of conventional NSAIDs and newer selective NSAIDs is also of concern No clinically important interactions occurred between any NSAID and either aspirin or coronary heart disease

---

We thank practices contributing to QRESEARCH database and David Stables (EMIS Computing) and Mike Pringle for their help and expertise in establishing QRESEARCH.

Contributors: JHC initiated and designed the study, got ethical approval, did the data extraction and manipulation, did the analysis, and drafted the paper. CC contributed to the study design, supervised and checked the analysis, advised on interpretation, and contributed to drafting the paper. JHC and CC are both guarantors.

Funding: This study was unfunded. QRESEARCH is a not for profit organisation that has received funding from the Department of Health, Health Protection Agency, National Audit Office, Disability Rights Commission, Medicines Partnership, Royal College of Physicians, and various universities for unrelated analyses and research. QRESARCH is entirely independent of the pharmaceutical industry.

Competing interests: None declared.

Ethical approval: Trent Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee.

References

1. Blower A, Brooks A, Fenn G, Hill A, Perarce M, Morant SV. Emergency admissions for upper gastrointestinal disease and their relation to NSAID use. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997;11: 283-91.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
2. Silverstein FE, Faich G, Goldstein JL, Simon LS, Pincus T, Whelton A, et al. Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA 2000;284: 1247-55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, et al. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000;343: 1520-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Topol E, Falk G. A coxib a day won't keep the doctor away. Lancet 2004;364: 640-1.[CrossRef]
5. Farkouh ME, Kishner H, Harrington RA, Ruland S, Verheught FW, Schnitzer TJ, et al. Comparison of lumiracoxib with naproxen and ibuprofen in the therapeutic arthritis research and gastrointestinal event trial (TARGET), cardiovascular outcomes: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364: 675-84.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6. Juni P, Rutjes AWS, Dieppe P. Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? BMJ 2002;324: 1287-8.[Free Full Text]
7. Wright JM. The double-edged sword of COX-2 selective NSAIDs. CMAJ 2002;167: 1131-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Jones R. Efficacy and safety of COX 2 inhibitors. BMJ 2002;325: 607-8.[Free Full Text]
9. Dieppe P, Bartlett C, Davey P, Doyal L, Ebrahim S. Balancing benefits and harms: the example of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. BMJ 2004;329: 31-4.[Free Full Text]
10. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of cyclo-oxygenase (Cox) II selective inhibitors, celecoxib, rofecoxib, meloxicam and etodolac for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. London: NICE, 2001. (Technology appraisal guidance No 27.)
11. Hippisley-Cox J, Stables D, Pringle M. QRESEARCH—a new general practice database for research. Journal of Informatics in Primary Care 2004;12: 49-50.
12. Office of National Statistics. Key health statistics from general practice. London: Department of Health, 1998: 192.
13. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M. Prevalence, care and outcomes for patients with diet controlled diabetes in general practice: cross sectional survey. Lancet 2004;364: 423-5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14. Hammersley V, Hippisley-Cox J, Wilson A, Pringle M. A comparison of research general practices and their patients with other practices—cross sectional survey in Trent. Br J Gen Pract 2002;52: 463-8.[Web of Science][Medline]
15. Hippisley-Cox J, Hammersley V, Pringle M, Coupland C, Crown N, Wright L. How useful are general practice databases for research? Analysis of their accuracy and completeness in one research network. Health Informatics Journal 2004;10: 91-109.[Abstract]
16. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Hammersley V, Crown N, Meal A, Wynn A. Antidepressants as a risk factor for ischaemic heart disease: case control study in general practice. BMJ 2001;323: 666-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Schlienger R, Jick H, Meier CR. Use of non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of first time acute myocardial infarction. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002;54: 327-32.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
18. Jick H, Vasilakis C, Derby LE. Antihypertensive drugs and fatal myocardial infarction in persons with uncomplicated hypertension. Epidemiology 1997;8: 446-8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
19. Meier CR, Jick SS, Derby LE, Vasilakis C, Jick H. Acute respiratory infections and risk of first time acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1998;351: 1467-71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
20. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M. Depression and risk of ischaemic heart disease in men: authors' reply. BMJ 1998;317: 1450.[Free Full Text]
21. Townsend P. Deprivation. J Soc Policy 1987;16: 125-46.
22. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S). Lancet 1994;344: 1383-9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
23. McMahan AD. Approaches to combat with confounding by indication in observational studies of intended drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003;12: 551-8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
24. Ray W, Stein M, Hall K, Daugherty J, Griffin M. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of serious coronary heart disease: observational cohort study. Lancet 2002;359: 118-23.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25. Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenback S, Sterchi R, Dieppe P, Matthias E. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 2004;364: 2021-9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Soloman D, Glynn RJ, Levin R, Avorn J. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2002;162: 1099-104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Watson DJ, Rhodes T, Cai B, Guess HA. Lower risk of thromboembolic events with naproxen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Intern Med 2002;162: 1105-10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Mamdani M, Rochon P, Juurlink DN, Anderson GM, Kopp A, Naglie G, et al. Effect of selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors and naproxen on short-term risk of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2003;163: 481-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Vandenbroucke J. Benefits and harms of drug treatments. BMJ 2004;329: 2-3.[Free Full Text]
30. MacDonald TM, Morant SV, Goldstein JL, Burke TA, Pettitt D. Channelling bias and the incidence of gastrointestinal haemorrhage in users of meloxicam, coxibs, and older, non-specific non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Gut 2003;52: 1265-70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Department of Health. National service framework for coronary artery disease: modern standards and service models. London: Stationery Office, 2000.
32. Rothman K, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Boston: Lippincott-Raven, 1998.

(Accepted 13 April 2005)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Carol Coupland, Yana Vinogradova, John Robson, Margaret May, and Peter Brindle
BMJ 2007 335: 136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Audit identifies the most read BMJ research papers

Susan Mayor
BMJ 2007 334: 554-555. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Life without COX 2 inhibitors: Risks and benefits are determined by dose and potency

Enrique J Sánchez-Delgado
BMJ 2006 332: 1451-1452. [Extract] [Full Text]

Risk of adverse gastrointestinal outcomes in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based nested case-control analysis

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Carol Coupland, and Richard Logan
BMJ 2005 331: 1310-1316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

NSAIDs may be cardiotoxic
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text]

COX 2 inhibitors, traditional NSAIDs, and the heart

Peter Jüni, Stephan Reichenbach, and Matthias Egger
BMJ 2005 330: 1342-1343. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Benefits and harms of drug treatments

Jan P Vandenbroucke
BMJ 2004 329: 2-3. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Balancing benefits and harms: the example of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Paul Dieppe, Christopher Bartlett, Peter Davey, Lesley Doyal, and Shah Ebrahim
BMJ 2004 329: 31-34. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Efficacy and safety of COX 2 inhibitors

Roger Jones
BMJ 2002 325: 607-608. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?

Peter Jüni, Anne WS Rutjes, and Paul A Dieppe
BMJ 2002 324: 1287-1288. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Antidepressants as risk factor for ischaemic heart disease: case-control study in primary care

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Mike Pringle, Vicky Hammersley, Nicola Crown, Alison Wynn, Andy Meal, and Carol Coupland
BMJ 2001 323: 666-669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Magnetic resonance imaging may be alternative to necropsy

Rob Bisset
BMJ 1998 317: 1450. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Krum, H., Curtis, S. P., Kaur, A., Wang, H., Smugar, S. S., Weir, M. R., Laine, L., Brater, D. C., Cannon, C. P. (2009). Baseline factors associated with congestive heart failure in patients receiving etoricoxib or diclofenac: multivariate analysis of the MEDAL program. Eur J Heart Fail 11: 542-550 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Goodson, N J, Brookhart, A M, Symmons, D P M, Silman, A J, Solomon, D H (2009). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use does not appear to be associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with inflammatory polyarthritis: results from a primary care based inception cohort of patients. Ann Rheum Dis 68: 367-372 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gislason, G. H., Rasmussen, J. N., Abildstrom, S. Z., Schramm, T. K., Hansen, M. L., Fosbol, E. L., Sorensen, R., Folke, F., Buch, P., Gadsboll, N., Rasmussen, S., Poulsen, H. E., Kober, L., Madsen, M., Torp-Pedersen, C. (2009). Increased Mortality and Cardiovascular Morbidity Associated With Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs in Chronic Heart Failure. Arch Intern Med 169: 141-149 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Li, H., Hortmann, M., Daiber, A., Oelze, M., Ostad, M. A., Schwarz, P. M., Xu, H., Xia, N., Kleschyov, A. L., Mang, C., Warnholtz, A., Munzel, T., Forstermann, U. (2008). Cyclooxygenase 2-Selective and Nonselective Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Induce Oxidative Stress by Up-Regulating Vascular NADPH Oxidases. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 326: 745-753 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Newsome, L. T., Weller, R. S., Gerancher, J. C., Kutcher, M. A., Royster, R. L. (2008). Coronary Artery Stents: II. Perioperative Considerations and Management. Anesth. Analg. 107: 570-590 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Brune, K., Katus, H. A., Moecks, J., Spanuth, E., Jaffe, A. S., Giannitsis, E. (2008). N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Concentrations Predict the Risk of Cardiovascular Adverse Events from Antiinflammatory Drugs: A Pilot Trial. Clin. Chem. 54: 1149-1157 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Haag, M. D. M., Bos, M. J., Hofman, A., Koudstaal, P. J., Breteler, M. M. B., Stricker, B. H. C. (2008). Cyclooxygenase Selectivity of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Risk of Stroke. Arch Intern Med 168: 1219-1224 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Milella, M., Metro, G., Gelibter, A., Pino, S. M., Cognetti, F., Fabi, A. (2008). COX-2 targeting in cancer: a new beginning?. Ann Oncol 19: 1209-1210 [Full text]  
• Galarraga, B., Ho, M., Youssef, H. M., Hill, A., McMahon, H., Hall, C., Ogston, S., Nuki, G., Belch, J. J. F. (2008). Cod liver oil (n-3 fatty acids) as an non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug sparing agent in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 47: 665-669 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hennekens, C. H., Borzak, S. (2008). Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors and Most Traditional Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Cause Similar Moderately Increased Risks of Cardiovascular Disease. J CARDIOVASC PHARMACOL THER 13: 41-50 [Abstract]  
• Sidiropoulos, P. I., Hatemi, G., Song, I.-H., Avouac, J., Collantes, E., Hamuryudan, V., Herold, M., Kvien, T. K., Mielants, H., Mendoza, J. M., Olivieri, I., Ostergaard, M., Schachna, L., Sieper, J., Boumpas, D. T., Dougados, M. (2008). Evidence-based recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis: systematic literature search of the 3E Initiative in Rheumatology involving a broad panel of experts and practising rheumatologists. Rheumatology (Oxford) 47: 355-361 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hippisley-Cox, J., Vinogradova, Y., Coupland, C., Parker, C. (2007). Risk of Malignancy in Patients With Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: Nested Case-Control Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64: 1368-1376 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Joshi, G. P., Gertler, R., Fricker, R. (2007). Cardiovascular Thromboembolic Adverse Effects Associated with Cyclooxygenase-2 Selective Inhibitors and Nonselective Antiinflammatory Drugs. Anesth. Analg. 105: 1793-1804 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Scott, P A, Kingsley, G H, Smith, C M, Choy, E H, Scott, D L (2007). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 66: 1296-1304 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Timmers, L., Pasterkamp, G., de Kleijn, D. P.V. (2007). Microsomal Prostaglandin E2 Synthase: A Safer Target than Cyclooxygenases?. Mol. Interv. 7: 195-199 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Vinogradova, Y., Robson, J., May, M., Brindle, P. (2007). Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new cardiovascular disease risk score for the United Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ 335: 136-136 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Klein, T., Eltze, M., Grebe, T., Hatzelmann, A., Komhoff, M. (2007). Celecoxib dilates guinea-pig coronaries and rat aortic rings and amplifies NO/cGMP signaling by PDE5 inhibition. Cardiovasc Res 75: 390-397 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Waksman, J. C, Brody, A., Phillips, S. D (2007). Nonselective Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Cardiovascular Risk: Are They Safe?. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 41: 1163-1173 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Salinas, G., Rangasetty, U. C., Uretsky, B. F., Birnbaum, Y. (2007). The Cycloxygenase 2 (COX-2) Story: It's Time to Explain, Not Inflame. J CARDIOVASC PHARMACOL THER 12: 98-111 [Abstract]  
• Rostom, A., Dube, C., Lewin, G., Tsertsvadze, A., Barrowman, N., Code, C., Sampson, M., Moher, D. (2007). Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors for Primary Prevention of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review Prepared for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. ANN INTERN MED 146: 376-389 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Ong, C.K.S., Lirk, P., Tan, C.H., Seymour, R.A. (2007). An Evidence-Based Update on Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. Clin Med Res 5: 19-34 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rahme, E., Nedjar, H. (2007). Risks and benefits of COX-2 inhibitors vs non-selective NSAIDs: does their cardiovascular risk exceed their gastrointestinal benefit? A retrospective cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 46: 435-438 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Anning, P. B., Coles, B., Morton, J., Wang, H., Uddin, J., Morrow, J. D., Dey, S. K., Marnett, L. J., O'Donnell, V. B. (2006). Nitric oxide deficiency promotes vascular side effects of cyclooxygenase inhibitors. Blood 108: 4059-4062 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Mitchell, J. A., Lucas, R., Vojnovic, I., Hasan, K., Pepper, J. R., Warner, T. D. (2006). Stronger inhibition by nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs of cyclooxygenase-1 in endothelial cells than platelets offers an explanation for increased risk of thrombotic events. FASEB J. 20: 2468-2475 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Madhok, R., Wu, O., McKellar, G., Singh, G. (2006). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs--changes in prescribing may be warranted. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45: 1458-1460 [Full text]  
• McGettigan, P., Henry, D. (2006). Cardiovascular Risk and Inhibition of Cyclooxygenase: A Systematic Review of the Observational Studies of Selective and Nonselective Inhibitors of Cyclooxygenase 2. JAMA 296: 1633-1644 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Dalby, A. B., Frank, D. N., St. Amand, A. L., Bendele, A. M., Pace, N. R. (2006). Culture-independent analysis of indomethacin-induced alterations in the rat gastrointestinal microbiota.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72: 6707-6715 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Chaiamnuay, S., Allison, J. J., Curtis, J. R. (2006). Risks versus benefits of cyclooxygenase-2-selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.. Am J Health Syst Pharm 63: 1837-1851 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Cheng, J. W. (2006). Use of Non-Aspirin Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 40: 1785-1796 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Helin-Salmivaara, A., Virtanen, A., Vesalainen, R., Gronroos, J. M., Klaukka, T., Idanpaan-Heikkila, J. E., Huupponen, R. (2006). NSAID use and the risk of hospitalization for first myocardial infarction in the general population: a nationwide case-control study from Finland. Eur Heart J 27: 1657-1663 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gislason, G. H., Jacobsen, S., Rasmussen, J. N., Rasmussen, S., Buch, P., Friberg, J., Schramm, T. K., Abildstrom, S. Z., Kober, L., Madsen, M., Torp-Pedersen, C. (2006). Risk of Death or Reinfarction Associated With the Use of Selective Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors and Nonselective Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs After Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 113: 2906-2913 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sanchez-Delgado, E. J (2006). Life without COX 2 inhibitors: Risks and benefits are determined by dose and potency.. BMJ 332: 1451-1452 [Full text]  
• Moncada, S (2006). Adventures in vascular biology: a tale of two mediators. Phil Trans R Soc B 361: 735-759 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Elliott, R. A., Hooper, L., Payne, K., Brown, T. J., Roberts, C., Symmons, D. (2006). Preventing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: are older strategies more cost-effective in the general population?. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45: 606-613 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Andersohn, F., Suissa, S., Garbe, E. (2006). Use of First- and Second-Generation Cyclooxygenase-2-Selective Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 113: 1950-1957 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sooriakumaran, P (2006). COX-2 inhibitors and the heart: are all coxibs the same?. Postgrad. Med. J. 82: 242-245 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Chan, A. T., Manson, J. E., Albert, C. M., Chae, C. U., Rexrode, K. M., Curhan, G. C., Rimm, E. B., Willett, W. C., Fuchs, C. S. (2006). Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs, Acetaminophen, and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events. Circulation 113: 1578-1587 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Harris, R. C., Breyer, M. D. (2006). Update on Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors. CJASN 1: 236-245 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Jordan, K., Porcheret, M., Kadam, U. T., Croft, P. (2006). The use of general practice consultation databases in rheumatology research. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45: 126-128 [Full text]  
• Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Logan, R. (2005). Risk of adverse gastrointestinal outcomes in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based nested case-control analysis. BMJ 331: 1310-1316 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hawkey, C J (2005). COX-2 chronology. Gut 54: 1509-1514 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Conaghan, P G, Vanharanta, H, Dieppe, P A (2005). Is progressive osteoarthritis an atheromatous vascular disease?. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1539-1541 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Caporali, R, Montecucco, C (2005). Cardiovascular effects of coxibs. Lupus 14: 785-788 [Abstract]  
• Jones, S. F., Power, I. (2005). Editorial I: Postoperative NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors: cardiovascular risks and benefits. Br J Anaesth 95: 281-284 [Full text]  
• (2005). Do NSAIDs Increase Risk for MI?. Journal Watch Cardiology 2005: 7-7 [Full text]  
• Antman, E. M., DeMets, D., Loscalzo, J. (2005). Cyclooxygenase Inhibition and Cardiovascular Risk. Circulation 112: 759-770 [Full text]  
• (2005). Do NSAIDs Increase Risk for MI?. JWatch Gastroenterology 2005: 9-9 [Full text]  
• (2005). Do NSAIDs Increase Risk for MI?. JWatch General 2005: 4-4 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

The 'pain' or the ‘drug’?

Wen Bin Liang
bmj.com, 10 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Why?

Duncan A. Peacock
bmj.com, 10 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Why do patients take NSAIDS in the first place?

Michael J Jordan
bmj.com, 10 Jun 2005 [Full text]

cause or effect ? well matching and adjusting are difficult tasks

Luca Puccetti
bmj.com, 11 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Are NSAIDs a marker for underlying inflammation and hyperviscosity?

Rupert A Gude
bmj.com, 12 Jun 2005 [Full text]

NSAID or disease - which is the risk?

Andrew N Bamji
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Risk of Myocardial Infarction and use of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory drugs

Elliot F Epstein
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Further anxieties and Cox inhibition

david r blake
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Continuity of medication

M G Whitten
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Re: Are NSAIDs a surrogate marker?

Heather A Beckett
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

NSAIDS and Heart Disease

david d holland, et al.
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

What next in pain relief?

Roger Lewis Weeks
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Relationship to antiplatelet agents

Matt Heywood
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Insulin is bad for you...or is it the diabetes?

John G Larkin, et al.
bmj.com, 14 Jun 2005 [Full text]

News Flash: sick people are sick

Yuval Rabinovich
bmj.com, 14 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Depressive disorders could bias the results

George Kirov
bmj.com, 14 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Study design problem?

Joseph F Standing
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2005 [Full text]

The potential dangers of a suboptimal study design

Richard Body, et al.
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Did this study warrant the media coverage it received?

David M Pruce
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Absolute or relative rubbish

Desmond G Julian
bmj.com, 16 Jun 2005 [Full text]

The mythology behind the scare stories

James Penston
bmj.com, 17 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Re: Did this study warrant the media coverage it received?

Stevie M Gamble
bmj.com, 17 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Is it now time to question the cardiovascular safety of all NSAIDs ?

John GF Cleland
bmj.com, 21 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Differential effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the risk of myocardial infarction

Michal R. Pijak, et al.
bmj.com, 22 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Response to David Pruce

Julia Hippisley-Cox, et al.
bmj.com, 22 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking some conventional NSAIDs should not be discounted but potential confounding factors ought to be better defined

Michal R. Pijak, et al.
bmj.com, 22 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Bias in cases of myocardial infarction in relation with a previous dyslipemia

Jacques M. Frey
bmj.com, 24 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Could GP consultations be the confounding variable?

Martin JB Wilkinson
bmj.com, 29 Jun 2005 [Full text]

Report from BMJ post publication review meeting

Trish Groves
bmj.com, 27 Jul 2007 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>