Responses

Download PDFPDF
Original research article
Extended treatment of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Number needed to treat to harm
    • Jonne J Sikkens, Internist in training Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    This is a really important and interesting article. I would like to congratulate the authors with their work.

    I do have one question with regard to figure 3B. The numbers needed to treat to harm (NNTH) in this table seem to have counterintuitive values, for instance see the value from the direct thrombin inhibitor, which is listed as 153, with a corresponding OR of harm of 2.63. This NNTH value is more or less equal to that of aspirin, which has a listed NNTH of 155, however, its corresponding OR for harm is much lower, namely 1.07. Similarly, the point estimate of the NNTH for standard dose Xa is 270 which is higher than that listed for low dose Xa inhibitor (187), while the respective ORs for harm show that standard-dose Xa inhibitor has a higher odds for harm. I realize that there is a possible logical explanation for these counterintuitive results, namely that the base rates of the placebo/observation condition vary significantly, but that would not be expected. Could the authors elaborate on this? Thank you very much in advance.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The number needed from a non-significant result
    • Kang-Ling Wang, Physician Taipei Veterans General Hospital
    • Other Contributors:
      • Marc Carrier, Physician

    This is our response to a concern raised by a reader regarding the estimates and credible intervals of those numbers needed to treat to harm presented in our article titled “Extended treatment of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.”

    First, we confirm that data published in the Journal are valid and correct.

    We also like to thank the reader to point it out as a number needed (either for benefit or harm) derived from an effect estimate that crosses the unity has been intuitively challenging to visualize (Hutton JL. Br J Haematol. 2009;146:27-30). Because it is given by the reciprocal of the absolute risk difference, a number needed can never include zero but straddles plus and minus infinity ∞ when the absolute risk difference include zero. By the frequentist approach based on inverting the confidence interval of the absolute risk difference, it represents that the number needed encompasses two disjoint regions: one from upper confidence interval to plus ∞ and the other from lower confidence interval to minus ∞ (Altman DG. BMJ. 1998;317:1309-12). Some had argued that for those non-significant results, a number needed should be presented as a single number without its confidence interval as it includes the possibility of no benefit or harm (McQuay HJ. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:712-20). Other had suggested that it should not be reported when being non-significant (McAlister FA. CMAJ. 2008;179:549-53).

    Our analyses with t...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.