Trial of Anticoagulants vs diet in DVT prophylaxis
Stefano Ricci, Asl1 dell' Umbria
23 August 2010
The idead is interesting. However, taking into account the widespread use of AC prophylaxis, I think that diet measures should be firstly used against standard care (and no AC) in patients who cannot be treated with AC (i.e. haemorrhagic stroke, contraindications to AC, etc). If diet measures reveal some effect, than a trial vs AC can be organised.
Competing interests
None
Minor errata in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2010, 7:31
Paul Agutter, Theoretical Medicine and Biology Group
24 August 2010
Despite proof-reading of the final manuscript, some errors crept through into the published PDF. None of these errors materially affects the argument of the paper, but we apologize for them nevertheless. We list them below.
Abstract “Additionally, an FPE rate of about 0.012% (35/28,400) in patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulants…” should read “Additionally, an FPE rate of about 0.12% (35/28,400) in patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulants…”
Main text Under Statistical considerations in designing non-inferiority trials, “The occurrence or non-occurrence of each safety and efficacy endpoint within the stated follow-up interval will be recorded. Potential confounders (subject age, gender, medical history, type and severity illness, type and duration of surgery, etc.) will also be recorded...” should read “The occurrence or non-occurrence of each safety and efficacy endpoint within the stated follow-up interval will be recorded. Potential confounders (subject age, gender, medical history, type and severity of illness, type and duration of surgery, etc.) will also be recorded...”
Tables Table 1 contains a redundant reference, and this redundancy slightly affected the totals. The first line of the table under "author" should read Mahé [89, 92]. The totals should read: 489 / 12,367 (4.0%); 443 / 12,629 (3.5%)
Table 2: The closing parenthesis after ‘patients’ should be dropped.
Table 6: the hyphenations in Arm-strong and Tungtrong-chitr should be eliminated.
References Cochrane apparently took down direct access to their review abstracts, so the URLs in the references need to be amended: #20 Change first URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16437461 # 87 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588346 #91 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed #95 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed #98 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160234 #110 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843687
David K Cundiff, Paul S Agutter, P Colm Malone and John C Pezzullo
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
Trial of Anticoagulants vs diet in DVT prophylaxis
23 August 2010
The idead is interesting. However, taking into account the widespread use of AC prophylaxis, I think that diet measures should be firstly used against standard care (and no AC) in patients who cannot be treated with AC (i.e. haemorrhagic stroke, contraindications to AC, etc). If diet measures reveal some effect, than a trial vs AC can be organised.
Competing interests
None
Minor errata in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2010, 7:31
24 August 2010
Despite proof-reading of the final manuscript, some errors crept through into the published PDF. None of these errors materially affects the argument of the paper, but we apologize for them nevertheless. We list them below.
Abstract
“Additionally, an FPE rate of about 0.012% (35/28,400) in patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulants…” should read “Additionally, an FPE rate of about 0.12% (35/28,400) in patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulants…”
Main text
Under Statistical considerations in designing non-inferiority trials, “The occurrence or non-occurrence of each safety and efficacy endpoint within the stated follow-up interval will be recorded. Potential confounders (subject age, gender, medical history, type and severity illness, type and duration of surgery, etc.) will also be recorded...” should read “The occurrence or non-occurrence of each safety and efficacy endpoint within the stated follow-up interval will be recorded. Potential confounders (subject age, gender, medical history, type and severity of illness, type and duration of surgery, etc.) will also be recorded...”
Tables
Table 1 contains a redundant reference, and this redundancy slightly affected the totals. The first line of the table under "author" should read Mahé [89, 92]. The totals should read: 489 / 12,367 (4.0%); 443 / 12,629 (3.5%)
Table 2: The closing parenthesis after ‘patients’ should be dropped.
Table 6: the hyphenations in Arm-strong and Tungtrong-chitr should be eliminated.
References
Cochrane apparently took down direct access to their review abstracts, so the URLs in the references need to be amended:
#20 Change first URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16437461
# 87 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588346
#91 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
#95 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
#98 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160234
#110 Change URL from the Cochrane website to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843687
David K Cundiff, Paul S Agutter, P Colm Malone and John C Pezzullo
Competing interests
We are the authors of the named article.