I'm having five of the residents in our program critically appraise the
articles recently published from this study, and so far, we found a similar
problem in the article on atenolol/ACE's in control of hypertension (in BMJ,
i don't have the reference handy)...the resident was doing the calculations
right and I even ran the numbers through CATmaker and got different NNT's
than the authors reported...curious...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Henry
> Barry
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 10:37 AM
> To: 'Evidence List'
> Subject: UKPDS
>
>
> I have been muddling through the UKPDS 33 (Lancet 1998; 352:837-53). I
> am impressed with the magnitude of this undertaking. I suspect there
> will be much discussion about its findings and how they are applied.
> The main results are summarized on page 843 (Figure 4).
>
> When I calculated NNT (based upon aggregate of 963 endpoints/2729
> subjects in the intensive control group and 438 endpoints/1138 in the
> conventional therapy group, and 10 years of follow up), I come up with
> an absolute risk reduction of .032 and NNT = 31.2 for 10 years.
> However, in the text on page 847, the authors report NNT of 19.6. Any
> insights into why my NNT is different from theirs?
>
> Henry
>
>
> Henry C. Barry, M.D., M.S.
> Associate Professor
> Senior Associate Chair
> Department of Family Practice
> B-104 Clinical Center
> Michigan State University
> East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1315
> Phone: 517-353-0851 x 456
> Fax: 517-355-7700
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|