Erschienen in:
01.12.2011 | Letter to the Editor
Should we really compare absolute risk reduction in different trials on osteoporosis: comment on the article by Ringe JD and Doherty JG
verfasst von:
Zhanna E. Belaya
Erschienen in:
Rheumatology International
|
Ausgabe 12/2011
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Excerpt
After reading the article “Absolute risk reduction in osteoporosis: assessing treatment efficacy by number needed to treat” by Ringe and Doherty [
1], many people would probably feel sheer and utter astonishment at the “great idea” of a “simplified approach”… Indeed, how is it possible that relative risk for vertebral fractures 0.59 (95% CI 0.48–0.73) in the SOTI trial (strontium ranelate) [
2] would turn into a nice number needed to treat (NNT)—9 “to reduce one vertebral fracture”, but the relative risk 0.5 (95% CI 0.26–0.66) for intermittent ibandronate in the BONE clinical trial [
3] is 21 postmenopausal women to be treated to avoid one vertebral fracture. Who is responsible for this? The agent or the populations that were involved in the clinical trials? …