Dear Steve,
I believe you are thinking of the European Coronary Artery Study Group's
article in The Lancet, 1979, i, 889-893: Coronary artery bypass surgery in
stable angina pectoris: Survival at two years. Looking at the 2-year
mortality, an "as treated" analysis showed 33/349 deaths (9.5%) in the
medicine group and 17/419 (4.1%) in the surgery group, with a p-value of
0.003. ITT analysis, on the other hand, showed 29/373 (7.8%) in the group
assigned to medicine and 21/395 (5.3%) in the group assignbed to surgery,
which was not a statistically significant difference (p = 0.17). There was
a subsequent article (Coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina
pectoris: Survival to five years. Lancet, 1982, ii, 1173-1180).
Regards,
Sue Kaiser
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Kaiser, MD, PhD, FACS Academic Phone: 212-241-3738
Department of Surgery, Box 1259 Practice Phone: 212-241-3699
The Mount Sinai School of Medicine Fax: 212-534-2654
One Gustave L. Levy Place Email: [log in to unmask]
New York, NY 10029-6574 [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:05 AM 6-15-01, Simon, Steve, PhD wrote:
>I seem to recall a recent publication that showed why Intention to Treat is
>a better approach to analysis. It involved some surgical intervention versus
>a non-surgical intervention and there were a fair number of patients who
>died prior to getting surgery (which is a form of non-compliance). I'd like
>to be able to cite this example in an article I am writing, but I just can't
>seem to track it down.
>
>Can anybody help?
>
>aTdHvAaNnKcSe (thanks in advance).
>
>Steve Simon, [log in to unmask], Standard Disclaimer.
>STATS: STeve's Attempt to Teach Statistics. http://www.cmh.edu/stats
>Watch for a change in servers. On or around June 2001, this page will
>move to http://www.childrens-mercy.org/stats
|