TY  - JOUR
T1  - MOre is less
AU  - Ghali JK
Y1  - 2011/11/14
N1  - 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.515
JO  - Archives of Internal Medicine
SP  - 1859
EP  - 1861
VL  - 171
IS  - 20
N2  - 
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?

SN  - 0003-9926
M3  - doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.515
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.515
ER  -