Abstract
Our criticism of the paper by Platt et al. (Jan. 18 issue)1 is based on four considerations: the statistical weakness of the data because of the small sample (alpha or Type I error2); inherent bias caused by overestimating the incidence of infection; changing surgical trends, which may diminish the clinical relevance of the data; and the potential hazards of widespread use of prophylaxis.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: