Letters News story on Tamiflu study

Authors’ reply to Mark Jones’s second critique of the study by Muthuri and colleagues reported in The BMJ

BMJ 2014; 348 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3004 (Published 30 April 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;348:g3004
  1. Puja R Myles, public health specialist/epidemiologist1,
  2. Jo Leonardi-Bee, associate professor in medical statistics1
  3. On behalf of the PRIDE research consortium investigators
  1. 1University of Nottingham, City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
  1. puja.myles{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Mark Jones has misunderstood our methods described in the paper by Muthuri and colleagues and our response to his previous critique.1 2 3 4

Our published paper reported the results of two separate survival analyses using a Cox regression shared frailty model. The first survival analysis was prompted by the question of whether treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors was associated with a reduction in mortality as compared with no antiviral treatment. For this analysis we followed the exact approach suggested by Jones—we modelled treatment as a time dependent covariate that equals 0 while the patient is untreated then becomes 1 when treatment begins (with untreated patients being coded as 0 for the entire duration of follow-up). This analysis yielded an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.58; …

View Full Text

Sign in

Log in through your institution

Subscribe