Your first two sentences aren't supported by the rest of your comment because I'm not rejecting the entire article. (I don't disagree with any of that other st

Your first two sentences aren't supported by the rest of your comment because I'm not rejecting the entire article. (I don't disagree with any of that other stuff you wrote.) I'm just criticizing the implicit assumption that medical reversals are necessarily evidence of a mistake. Indeed, from the second paragraph (emphasis mine): > Medical reversals are a subset of low-value medical practices and are defined as practices that have been found, through randomized controlled trials, to be no better than a prior or lesser standard of care (Prasad et al., 2013; Prasad et al., 2011). That is, the authors assert that something is low value if it is later proven to not work.