首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >In Reply: Red blood cell transfusion strategies and health care-associated infection
【24h】

In Reply: Red blood cell transfusion strategies and health care-associated infection

机译:在答复中:红细胞输注策略与医疗保健相关感染

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The clarification regarding comparative groups from Dr Gregersen and colleagues is appreciated. In their abstract, the HR was reported as 0.81 (95% CI, 0.58-1.14) and these figures were used in our meta-analysis. This was predicated on the assumption, based on conventional terminology, that the newer therapy (restrictive strategy) was placed in the numerator and the traditional or control therapy (liberal strategy) was placed in the denominator. This was an incorrect assumption. Dr Fujita is correct that the publication by Karam et al emanates from the TRIPICU trial, and this subgroup should not be pooled with the larger trial. In the publication of the FOCUS trial, there was no information given regarding 84 patients with postoperative pneumonia.
机译:格雷格森博士及其同事对比较组的澄清表示赞赏。在他们的摘要中,HR被报告为0.81(95%CI,0.58-1.14),这些数据被用于我们的荟萃分析。这是基于以下假设的前提:基于常规术语,将新疗法(限制性策略)放在分子中,而传统或对照疗法(自由策略)放在分母中。这是一个错误的假设。藤田博士认为,Karam等人的出版物来自TRIPICU试验,是正确的,并且该子组不应与较大的试验合并。在FOCUS试验的出版物中,没有提供有关84例术后肺炎患者的信息。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号