Prescribing Advice for GPs

Relative vs. Absolute Benefit

December 1, 2005 on 4:13 pm | In Critical Appraisal Tips |  Print | No Comments

Published studies will often quote risk reductions and almost without exception these are relative risk reductions rather than actual risk reductions. This is because relative risk reductions are usually numerically greater than the actual risk reduction. Larger numbers will look and sound more impressive.

For example, in the FIT 1 study hip fracture rates were decreased from a baseline risk of 2.2% to 1.1% in the treatment arm. This is an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% or a relative risk reduction of 50% - which sounds better to you?

Generalised findings

December 1, 2005 on 4:04 pm | In Critical Appraisal Tips |  Print | No Comments

Evidence from trials should be interpreted carefully to ensure that conclusions and recommendations are not applied to groups of patients who were not represented in the trials.

It is inappropriate to extrapolate the findings of a study to a patient group or type who were not present in the study.

For example, some studies of depression are undertaken in severely depressed patients. The effects seen in these trials should not be extrapolated to cases of minor depression as the actual clinical effects in these patients were not covered in the study.

New Category - Critical Appraisal Tips

December 1, 2005 on 4:00 pm | In Admin Information |  Print | No Comments

A new category has been created called Critical Appraisal Tips. This area of the site aims to deliver bite-sized tips for critically appraising evidence from clinical trials.

It will allow readers to pick up some quick pointers of things to look out for when reading clinical papers, promotional materials and journal advertisements.

Credit for the idea goes to an article at the pharmawatch blog.