Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
blockers in patients without
congestive heart failureData cited from two studies were inaccurate
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
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)
Read all Rapid Responses