RT Journal
A1 Ghali JK
T1 MOre is less
JF Archives of Internal Medicine
JO Archives of Internal Medicine
YR 2011
FD November 14
VO 171
IS 20
SP 1859
OP 1861
DO 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.515
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.515
AB 
I read with great interest the article by Sipahi et al1 and the thoughtful accompanying editorial by Warner Stevenson2 on the impact of QRS duration on outcomes with resynchronization therapy. I wholeheartedly endorse Redberg's acknowledgment of the merit of the article.3 However, considering the data showed that far more costly and invasive procedures were being done than the evidence justified with far less benefit than anticipated, would not the designation “More Is Less” be more appropriate, as is true for many treatments and procedures that fall in the “Less Is More” category?