References

1. Roubik  DW. Competitive interactions between neotropical pollinators and africanized honey bees. Science. 1978; 201::1030–1032.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Hazen  RM. Curve-fitting. Science. 1978; 202::823.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Stanbrook  MB, Austin  PC and Redelmeier  DA. Acronym-named randomized trials in medicine–the ART in medicine study. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2006; 355::101–102.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Diamond  GA. Right answer, wrong question: on the clinical relevance of the cardiovascular history. Circulation. 2011; 124::2377–2379.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Cheng  VY, Berman  DS, Rozanski  A, Dunning  AM, Achenbach  S, Al-Mallah  M, Budoff  MJ, Cademartiri  F, Callister  TQ, Chang  HJ, Chinnaiyan  K, Chow  BJ, Delago  A, Gomez  M, Hadamitzky  M, Hausleiter  J, Karlsberg  RP, Kaufmann  P, Lin  FY, Maffei  E, Raff  GL, Villines  TC, Shaw  LJ and Min  JK. Performance of the traditional age, sex, and angina typicality-based approach for estimating pretest probability of angiographically significant coronary artery disease in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography: results from the multinational coronary CT angiography evaluation for clinical outcomes: an international multicenter registry (CONFIRM). Circulation. 2011; 124::2423–2432.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Horton  R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet. 1996; 347::984–985.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Blackstone  EH. Comparing apples and oranges. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2002; 123::8–15.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Mokhles  MM, Kortke  H, Stierle  U, Wagner  O, Charitos  EI, Bogers  AJ, Gummert  J, Sievers  HH and Takkenberg  JJ. Survival comparison of the Ross procedure and mechanical valve replacement with optimal self-management anticoagulation therapy: propensity-matched cohort study. Circulation. 2011; 123::31–38.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Takkenberg  JJ, Puvimanasinghe  JP and Grunkemeier  GL. Simulation models to predict outcome after aortic valve replacement. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2003; 75::1372–1376.
   [Google Scholar]
10. van Geldorp  MW, Eric Jamieson  WR, Kappetein  AP, Ye  J, Fradet  GJ, Eijkemans  MJ, Grunkemeier  GL, Bogers  AJ and Takkenberg  JJ. Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2009; 137::881–886. 886e881-885 .
    [Google Scholar]
11. Carabello  B. Assessment of the patient with valvular heart disease: an integrative approach. Aswan Heart Centre: Science and Practice Series. 2011; 15:: http://dx.doi.org/10.5339/ahcsps.2011.15 .
    [Google Scholar]
12. de Leval  M. Reflections on outcome analyses: introducing the concept of near misses. Aswan Heart Centre: Science and Practice Series. 2011; 12:: http://dx.doi.org/10.5339/ahcsps.2011.12 .
    [Google Scholar]
13. Klieverik  LMA, Noorlander  M, Takkenberg  JJM, Kappetein  P, Bekkers  JA, van Herwerden  LA and Bogers  AJJC. Outcome after aortic valve replacement in young adults: is patient profile more important than prosthesis type? Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 2006; 15::4.
    [Google Scholar]