Authors’ reply to Grant and Garland and to Bolland and colleaguesBMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2931 (Published 29 April 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g2931
- Rajiv Chowdhury, cardiovascular epidemiologist1,
- Oscar H Franco, professor2
- On behalf of Setor Kunutsor, Anna Vitezova, Clare Oliver-Williams, Susmita Chowdhury, Jessica C Kiefte-de-Jong, Hassan Khan, Cristina P Baena, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Moshe B Hoshen, Becca S Feldman, An Pan, Laura Johnson, Francesca Crowe, and Frank B Hu
- 1Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK
- 2Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
We agree with Grant and Garland that, although existing ecological studies support the findings of our meta-analysis of observational studies, further work—especially that involving well powered randomised intervention studies—is needed.1 2 However, the respective pooled risk ratios that we reported by combining the primary and secondary prevention cohorts are based on indirect comparisons (only a subset of studies provided mortality risk data on people with pre-existing disease).
As Bolland and …