covid
Buscar en
Angiología
Toda la web
Inicio Angiología Interpretación de los resultados de un ensayo clínico o metaanálisis en angio...
Journal Information
Vol. 59. Issue 1.
Pages 3-11 (January 2007)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 59. Issue 1.
Pages 3-11 (January 2007)
Full text access
Interpretación de los resultados de un ensayo clínico o metaanálisis en angiología y cirugía vascular: odds ratios, riesgo relativo, intervalos de confianza y credibilidad
Interpreting the results from a clinical trial or meta-analysis in angiology and vascular surgery: odds ratios, relative risk, confidence intervals and credibility
Visits
3778
J. Escrig-Sos
Corresponding author
escrig_vicsos@gva.es

Correspondencia: Servicio de Cirugía General y del Aparato Digestivo. Hospital General de Castellón. Avda. Benicássim, s/n, 5.° B, Secretaría. E-12004 Castellón de la Plana.
, J. Molina-Martínez
Servicio de Cirugía General y del Aparato Digestivo. Hospital General de Castellón. Castellón de la Plana, España
This item has received
Article information
Resumen
Objetivo y desarrollo

Artículo de divulgación en el que se explican algunas reseñas básicas para la interpretación de los resultados que aparecen en un metaanálisis o un ensayo clínico, de un modo no formal desde el punto de vista estadístico, con el fin de facilitar su comprensión para el lector poco versado en esta materia. Se acompañan de ejemplos extraídos de varios artículos en angiología y cirugía vascular, de reciente publicación, que confrontan los resultados de la angioplastia y la endarterectomía para las estenosis críticas de la arteria carótida.

Palabras clave:
Ensayo clínico
Interpretación de resultados
Intervalos de confianza
Medidas de riesgo
Metaanálisis
Summary
Aim and development

To present a non-specialised paper in which we outline some of the basic features regarding the interpretation of the results that appear in a meta-analysis or clinical trial; our aim is to do this in an informal manner as far as statistics is concerned, so as to make it easier to understand for readers who are not so familiar with the subject matter. The article includes examples from a number of recently published papers on angiology and vascular surgery which compare the outcomes of angioplasties and endarterectomies performed to correct critical stenoses of the carotid artery.

Key words:
Clinical trial
Confidence intervals
Interpretation of results
Meta-analysis
Risk measurements
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Referencias bibliográficas
[1.]
Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I., et al.
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement.
JAMA, 276 (1996), pp. 637-639
[2.]
Cook D.I., Gebski V.J., Keech A.C..
Subgroup analysis in clinical trials.
Med J Aust., 180 (2004), pp. 289-291
[3.]
Coward L.J., Featherstone R.L., Brown M.M..
Safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis compared with carotid endarterectomy: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized evidence.
[4.]
Mas J.L., Chatellier G., Beyssen B., Branchereau A., Moulin T., Becquemin J.P., EVA-3S Investigators, et al.
Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis.
N Engl J Med., 355 (2006), pp. 1660-1671
[5.]
The SPACE Collaborative Group.
30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomized non-inferiority trial.
Lancet, 368 (2006), pp. 1239-1247
[6.]
International Committee of Medical Journals Editors.
Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.
BMJ, 296 (1988), pp. 401-405
[7.]
Jones B., Jarvis P., Lewis J.A., Ebbutt A.F..
Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods.
BMJ, 313 (1996), pp. 36-39
[8.]
Matthews R.A.J..
Methods for assessing the credibility of clinical trial outcome.
Drug Inf J., 35 (2001), pp. 1469-1478
[9.]
Spiegelhalter D.J., Abrams K.R., Myles J.P..
Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation, Wiley, (2004),
[10.]
Pezzullo JP. Bayesian credibility analysis: an online calculator. URL: http://members.aol.com/johnp71/bayecred.html. [06.11.2006].
[11.]
Escrig J..
Sobre cómo analizar la credibilidad de un ensayo clínico o metaanálisis cuyo resultado principal se ofrezca enodds ratio, riesgo relativo, ohazard ratio.
Cir Esp, 78 (2005), pp. 351-356
[12.]
Escrig J. Intervalos de confianza: por qué usarlos. Cir Esp 2007 [in press].
Copyright © 2007. SEACV
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos