A slightly longer version (4 min read) of my take on the new revascularization guidelines as they pertain to LM disease can be found here https://t.co/joNIoreFIc
@VictorDayan1@kaulcsmc@drjohnm@DavidLBrownMD
@DrToddLee@drjohnm@theheartorg Why would anyone be surprised? 27years ago a RCT of nearly 7000 patients found data compatible with a possible 9% mortality reduction CI .91-1.07 & hospital decreased 28% CI 0.66 to 0.79
@FAircanada46710 So it goes bad to worse. The lineup for the AC lounge, included rather worthlessly with the purchase our business class tickets, is more than 1 hour. Needless to say will find other eateries.
So AC e boarding downloads still not working. They don't seem to really care. Looks like I'll need a printer to board later today. Thanks for the lack of help. @AirCanada
@kaulcsmc Desk reject in all cases, doesn’t meet our priorities, see yeah later. And oh by the way, good luck and look forward to other submissions from you in the future
New @nejm study https://t.co/uvOjPWaI7t median 5.1 years MACE = 4.81/1000PY in #pitavastatin and 7.32/1000PY in placebo. Text claims 5 year NNT = 106. What am I missing? Looks like 5 year NNT = 1/(7.32/1000-4.81/1000) = 398 to me. Statistically significant but clinically?
Sad day - my old friend towed way to its demise. But broken power steering, gas leak requiring open windows, battery needing constant jumping, slow tire leak, and the family of mice living in the trunk, just added up to too much. Last drive yesterday, 20 years was a good run!
@drjohnm@f2harrell@kaulcsmc@beenwrekt@VPrasadMDMPH “Reporting the LR may improve the interpretation of clinical trials” I don’t think so. Large LR mostly showing overly enthusiastic Ha being proposed. To assess how much support exists for the null (+/- range of equivalence) need the full probability distribution @arthur_alb1
Have a short article deals with teaching, research, biases, critical reading, and foundational past research. No natural home and no interested publisher. So 1st use of https://t.co/d5SPtTjsZN https://t.co/aGxE4fVnfF
Also available on my webpage https://t.co/xRDxEM64z1
@DrToddLee@kaulcsmc Ignore the results for a moment. A priori, do you think in NA context, equipoise existed to do this trial? We know this drug makes you bleed and in the context of recent stroke…. I certainly would never have participated.
@f2harrell@VPrasadMDMPH ChatGPT no better - how to interpret - RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72-1.42?
“RR= 1.01 means no significant Δ in the outcome between intervention & control group. The 95% CI range indicates that we are 95% confident that the true effect of the intervention lies somewhere within that range."