FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4248575275> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4248575275 endingPage "1744" @default.
• W4248575275 startingPage "1743" @default.
• W4248575275 abstract "HomeStrokeVol. 33, No. 7Timeless Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBTimeless Lise M. Bjerre, MSc, MD and Jacques LeLorier, MD, PhD Lise M. BjerreLise M. Bjerre Centre de Recherche, Hôtel-Dieu du Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Search for more papers by this author and Jacques LeLorierJacques LeLorier Centre de Recherche, Hôtel-Dieu du Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Search for more papers by this author Originally published1 Jul 2002https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000021722.37256.74Stroke. 2002;33:1743–1744To the Editor:We were pleased to see that Quilliam et al1 elected to use our number needed to harm (NNTH) in case-control studies2 to express the estimates of bleeding risks they obtained from their case-control study in elderly stroke survivors. However, in reporting their NNTHs, they omitted one crucial element, namely time. This is essential to the interpretation of NNTHs: it makes a vast difference whether the NNTH of 467 reported for serious bleed and aspirin refers to an exposure period of 1, 6, or 12 months—or 12 years.The authors reported their estimate of the unexposed event rate (UER) as event rates per person-year of follow-up: however, this is not sufficient: an NNHT for case-control studies should always be expressed in terms of the duration of exposure in the case-control study at issue, unless the exposure is a 1-time event with lasting effects, such as in the case of vaccination.Furthermore, the authors do not specify whether their UER estimate was derived from data applying to a 1-year period or whether it was derived by extrapolation or interpolation from data applying to shorter or longer time periods. This is important because making UER estimates based on interpolations or extrapolations assumes that the risk of events in unexposed persons is constant over the chosen time period. This may not necessarily be the case, and therefore every interpolation and extrapolation used to estimate a UER should be justified based on substantive knowledge.Finally, there are some calculation errors in the 95% CIs reported by the authors for their NNTHs (page 2301 of their article): 2 of the CIs (those for aspirin and “combination”) have infinity as a limit. It is unclear to us how the authors arrived at this result, as this can only occur when the odds ratio (OR) is exactly zero, which was not the case, or when the UER is equal to zero, which was also not the case and is a situation that almost never arises. When calculating CIs for NNTHs, it should be kept in mind that a modified version of the NNTH formula is to be used if the lower limit of the CI for the OR is less than 1.2 We recalculated the NNTHs and their CIs. Correct values are as follows (NNTH given first, CI in parentheses; bold type indicates elements that were erroneous or missing in the Quilliam study report):NNTH for a any serious bleed, given treatment with: (1) warfarin: 126 (76 to 297) per year; (2) aspirin: 467 (182 to 817) per year; (3) combination: 96 (40-3268) per year.We hope that other authors will follow suit and use the NNTH for case-control studies. In doing so, however, it is crucial that they pay due attention to congruency between the duration of exposure in the case-control study and the time period over which the incidence was calculated to obtain the UER, lest their results lose their meaning and interpretability.1 Quilliam BJ, Lapane KL, Eaton CB, Mor V. Effect of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents on risk of hospitalization for bleeding among a population of elderly nursing home stroke survivors. Stroke. 2001; 32: 2299–2304.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Bjerre LM, LeLorier J. Expressing the magnitude of adverse effects in case-control studies: “the number of patients needed to be treated for one additional patient to be harmed.” BMJ. 2000; 320: 503–506.CrossrefMedlineGoogle ScholarstrokeahaStrokeStrokeStroke0039-24991524-4628Lippincott Williams & WilkinsResponseQuilliam Brian J., , PhD and Lapane Kate L., , PhD01072002We thank Bjerre and LeLorier for their helpful letter regarding our presentation of the number needed to treat to harm (NNTH).1 We recognize the apparent controversy in how to estimate the upper boundary of the 95% CI when the interval includes the null value of 1.2,3 As opposed to suggesting the upper bound of the confidence interval is infinity, Bjerre and LeLorier suggest an alternate formula for calculating the upper boundary.2 Yet to our knowledge, this article does not offer either a discussion or a derivation of this formula to allow the reader a better understanding of the utility of this estimating procedure. Despite this, we appreciate the clarification of the proposed methodology and hope that it will initiate further discussion. Nevertheless, we feel the NNTH we estimated for bleeding among aspirin or combination users remains clinically significant whether the upper boundary was reported as infinite (as we did) or as 817 and 3268, respectively, as estimated by Bjerre and LeLorier.2We also regret omitting the element of time when interpreting the NNTH, although this information could be obtained from both the methodology and discussion sections of the article. We hypothesized that the exposures of interest would occur approximately 6 months prior to hospitalization for a bleeding event.1 We agree with Bjerre and LeLorier that this should be reinforced in the interpretation of the measure. We do, however, believe that the assumption of a relatively constant rate of hospitalization for bleeds used in our estimation of the unexposed event rate (UER) hold up in our data and appear to in previous reports, as well.4Finally, we support the use of any measures, including the NNTH, that may help physicians and other clinicians make difficult decisions when enumerated by large amounts of technical information. As Bjerre and LeLorier state, the odds ratios derived from case-control studies assessing adverse effects “ … are not intuitively understandable estimates of risk.”2 We hope that by our example, others can learn to appreciate both the utilities and the intricacies of this methodology and ultimately advance the dissemination of research results to clinicians and other healthcare professionals. Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails July 2002Vol 33, Issue 7 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000021722.37256.74PMID: 12105340 Originally publishedJuly 1, 2002 PDF download Advertisement" @default.
• W4248575275 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4248575275 creator A5008018875 @default.
• W4248575275 creator A5046446434 @default.
• W4248575275 date "2002-07-01" @default.
• W4248575275 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W4248575275 title "Timeless" @default.
• W4248575275 cites W1982900907 @default.
• W4248575275 cites W1987376652 @default.
• W4248575275 cites W2074076284 @default.
• W4248575275 cites W2085644025 @default.
• W4248575275 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000021722.37256.74" @default.
• W4248575275 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12105340" @default.
• W4248575275 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W4248575275 type Work @default.
• W4248575275 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4248575275 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4248575275 hasAuthorship W4248575275A5008018875 @default.
• W4248575275 hasAuthorship W4248575275A5046446434 @default.
• W4248575275 hasBestOaLocation W42485752751 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConcept C121446783 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConcept C2778880379 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConceptScore W4248575275C121446783 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConceptScore W4248575275C126322002 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConceptScore W4248575275C2778880379 @default.
• W4248575275 hasConceptScore W4248575275C71924100 @default.
• W4248575275 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W4248575275 hasLocation W42485752751 @default.
• W4248575275 hasLocation W42485752752 @default.
• W4248575275 hasOpenAccess W4248575275 @default.
• W4248575275 hasPrimaryLocation W42485752751 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3005920802 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3007172763 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3009335100 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3011042295 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3011735064 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3020350750 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3021774511 @default.
• W4248575275 hasRelatedWork W3036585995 @default.
• W4248575275 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W4248575275 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4248575275 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4248575275 workType "article" @default.