Secondary prevention in acute myocardial infarction
| Autor: | N. A Herity, R. H Mehta, K. A Eagle, R. Harrison, M. Burr, A. Nightingale, A. Marshall, J. F. Hansen, R D Rice |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 1998 |
| Předmět: |
Secondary prevention
Pediatrics medicine.medical_specialty End point business.industry General Engineering General Medicine medicine.disease Placebo group Confidence interval Surgery Total mortality Heart failure Relative risk medicine General Earth and Planetary Sciences Myocardial infarction business General Environmental Science |
| Zdroj: | BMJ. 317:1152-1152 |
| ISSN: | 1468-5833 0959-8138 |
| DOI: | 10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1152a |
| Popis: | Editor—Mehta and Eagle’s review of secondary prevention in acute myocardial infarction contains some important errors.1 Firstly, in table 3 the relative risks of death cited for references 17, 18, and 20 are in fact percentage reductions in mortality divided by 100. These figures are so out of keeping with the rest of the table that it is surprising they were not spotted earlier. Even as percentage mortality reductions they are inaccurate. In the original paper by Pfeffer et al (ref 17) the 21% reduction observed referred to cardiovascular rather than total mortality, and the 95% confidence interval was 5% to 35% rather than to 25%. Pfeffer et al calculated a 19% reduction in total mortality (95% confidence interval 3% to 32%, P=0.019),2 although a crude calculation gives 17%. Secondly, the data cited from the paper by Ambrosioni et al (ref 20) refer to a combined end point (death or severe congestive heart failure) rather than to total mortality. The mortality statistics are 51/784 (6.5%) in the placebo group and 38/772 (4.9%) in the treatment group, so that the risk reduction is 25% (−11% to 60%; P=0.19)3 and the relative risk 0.75. These are the only two original articles that I have checked. The errors are of fact rather than typography and raise questions about the remainder of the article. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|