|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 33 (November 20), 2005: pp. 8537 © 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.6525
Is the Statistical Difference Clinically Relevant?AOKh-Linz, Linz, Austria To the Editor: Clark et al1 concluded in their extensive meta-analyses that the reduction of infection-related mortality was significant with an odds ratio of 0.51. Patients treated with colony-stimulating factors had a shorter length of hospitalization and a shorter neutrophil recovery time, hazard ratio 0.63 and 0.32, respectively. As a clinician, I am also interested if these significant differences are also of clinical relevance. Please give us the absolute difference between both treatments. I would highly appreciate it if the editor of the Journal of Clinical Oncology would take care that the interested reader finds absolute differences in the articles without having to do mathematical exercises. I would suggest on behalf of the busy readers that absolute differences, instead of relative differences or hazard ratios, should be reported in the abstracts. Authors Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest The author indicated no potential conflicts of interest. REFERENCE
1. Clark OAC, Lyman GH, Castro AA, et al: Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 23:4198-4214, 2005
Related Reply
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|