Some errors crept into this Primary Care paper by Anders Beich and colleagues (BMJ 2003;327: 536-42). In the results section we failed to spot a small inconsistency between the text and table 4. In the first paragraph (abridged and printed version; second paragraph in the full, web version) of the section “Intervention effect and assessment efforts,” we said “NNTs [numbers needed to treat] of single studies ranged from 5 to 61,” but the correct lower level of this range should be 6, as table 4 shows. Additionally, we inexplicably published a few wrong values in table 5 (full version). The screening effect in the study by Fleming (ref 42) is 3.7 [not 0.7], and the maximum number of drinks for women in the studies by Ockene and Fleming (ref 41) is 4 [not 3] and for men in the study by Anderson is 11 [not 5].







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27