BMJ 2002;325:439 ( 24 August )

Letters

Preventing stroke with ramipril

    Results should have been presented in ways that help practising clinicians
    Benefits were considerably overstated
    Superiority of particular class of antihypertensive agent remains to be shown
    Presentation of data is misleading
    Summary of responses

Results should have been presented in ways that help practising clinicians

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITORI was surprised to see that the BMJ published a trial that presented the results in a way that exaggerates the findings.¹ Stroke prevention, the topic under discussion in the paper by Bosch et al, is important for patients, doctors, and funders of care. Hence the results should have been presented in a way that would help practising cliniciansby giving numbers needed to treat (NNT) along with relative risk reductions (RRR). The authors report a relative risk reduction of 32% in all strokes and of 61% in fatal strokes. For all strokes this translates into a number needed to treat of 67 for four and a half years' treatment.

(Credit: DR E WALKER/SPL)

Evidence shows that the way results of clinical trials are presented influences both physicians and funders of health care. ^{2 3} In the randomised controlled trial by Bucher et al, doctors gave higher ratings for the effectiveness of the drug and . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

CONSORT statement requires closer examination

Douglas G Altman, Kenneth F Schulz, and David Moher
BMJ 2002 325: 1364. [Extract] [Full Text]

How to avoid criticism
BMJ 2002 325: i. [Full Text] [PDF]

Preventing stroke

Joachim Schrader and Stephan Lüders
BMJ 2002 324: 687-688. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Use of ramipril in preventing stroke: double blind randomised trial

Jackie Bosch, Salim Yusuf, Janice Pogue, Peter Sleight, Eva Lonn, Badrudin Rangoonwala, Richard Davies, Jan Ostergren, and Jeff Probstfield
BMJ 2002 324: 699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration

H C Bucher, M Weinbacher, and K Gyr
BMJ 1994 309: 761-764. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Davies, S. (2003). New edicts for letters to the editor. BMJ 326: 63-64 [Full text]  
• Yusuf, S., Bosch, J., Sleight, P. (2003). Preventing stroke with ramipril---authors' reply. BMJ 326: 52-52 [Full text]  
• Altman, D. G, Schulz, K. F, Moher, D. (2002). CONSORT statement requires closer examination. BMJ 325: 1364-1364 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Results of randomised trials – relative or absolute effect measures?

Douglas G Altman, et al.
bmj.com, 4 Sep 2002 [Full text]

Responding to issues raised

Salim Yusuf, et al.
bmj.com, 30 Oct 2002 [Full text]

demystifying with HOPE

Malvinder S. Parmar
bmj.com, 6 Dec 2002 [Full text]

Correction to "demystifying with HOPE"

Malvinder Parmar
bmj.com, 23 Dec 2002 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>