Authors’ reply to Yudkin and Lipska
暂无分享,去创建一个
Yudkin and Lipska note that we did not present the numbers needed to treat for the assessed outcomes in our systematic review.1 2 According to the Cochrane Collaboration, a relative measure—for example, relative risk or odds ratio—is preferred for reporting intervention effects because it remains more stable across different risk groups.3 Therefore, we reported the relative risk ratio for all outcomes.2
Furthermore, we reported the absolute risk difference for the composite microvascular outcome and retinopathy. …
[1] K. Lipska,et al. Hard end points are needed for intensive glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[2] A. Vaag,et al. Intensive glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[3] Douglas G Altman,et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.