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:回复:红细胞输血策略和医疗保健相关感染

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:赞赏来自Gregersen博士和同事的比较群体的澄清。 在摘要中,HR报告为0.81(95%CI,0.58-1.14),这些数字用于我们的META分析。 基于常规术语,将新疗法(限制性策略)置于分子中的新疗法(限制性策略)并将传统或对照治疗(自由主义策略)置于分母中的假设上进行了预测。 这是一个错误的假设。 藤田博士是正确的,Karam等人从TripIdu试验中发布,而这个亚组不应与较大的试验合并。 在焦点试验的出版中,没有关于术后肺炎的84例患者的信息。

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