Reader Testimonials

I continue to find The Medical Letter highly valuable and appreciate the consistently concise, evidence-based updates. After reading the April 13 issue noting that “ranitidine returns,” I queried the OpenEvidence AI app regarding its current status and FDA rationale. The... More

I continue to find The Medical Letter highly valuable and appreciate the consistently concise, evidence-based updates. After reading the April 13 issue noting that “ranitidine returns,” I queried the OpenEvidence AI app regarding its current status and FDA rationale. The app responded that ranitidine had not been approved for return to the U.S. market and referenced its 2020 withdrawal due to NDMA contamination. When I pointed out the discrepancy, the system acknowledged that its literature database appears to have a cutoff around mid-2025. I share this not as a critique of OpenEvidence, but rather to underscore the importance of timely, curated clinical updates such as those provided by The Medical Letter. As AI tools become more integrated into clinical decision-making, their dependence on up-to-date source material will be increasingly important—and your publication remains a reliable benchmark in that regard. Thank you for your continued excellent work.  Less

I received my first Medical Letter in pharmacy school 1975 (50 years ago).

• The Medical Letter has been my primary resource for new drug/device info.
• To counter drug sales rep detailing.
• To review new drugs for inclusion or exclusion from our... More

I received my first Medical Letter in pharmacy school 1975 (50 years ago).

• The Medical Letter has been my primary resource for new drug/device info.
• To counter drug sales rep detailing.
• To review new drugs for inclusion or exclusion from our hospital formulary based upon comparative efficacy, adverse effects and cost.
• To teach nursing and pharmacist classes on: ‘Drugs for …’ or ‘Choice of Antibacterial Drugs for …’
• A long-time user of your C.M.E. program (which I adapt for my classes)

  Less