Talk:STICH

Order of outcomes

I feel that in general, the intervention group should be listed first, followed by the standard-of-care comparison group. So in this case, results should be CABG+OMT vs. OMT alone. Can someone fix this? --Dave Iberri 10:43, 5 December 2012 (PST)

I agree. Will do now. --Tim Plante 18:10, 5 December 2012 (PST)

Okay. I got about to the end then realized that my approach for inverting the hazard ratios isn't correct. If we are changing the order in which we are presenting the outcomes, we'd have to change what the hazard ratio says, right?

1% vs. 4% (HR 3.12; 95% CI 1.33-7.31; P=0.006)

..would become:

4% vs. 1% (HR ???; 95% CI ???-???; P=0.006)

Should the HR be 1/3.12 = 0.32? and CIs inverted likewise? --Tim Plante 18:22, 5 December 2012 (PST)

If it's going to be too much work to reverse the outcomes, then let's just present things as they appear in the original manuscript. Safer that way. --Dave Iberri 14:55, 21 December 2012 (PST)

Intention to treat +/- per protocol in primary outcome

Hey gang! I know that in the past we have opted to leave out per-protocol analyses when the primary endpoint was intention-to-treat. The way this review is currently written, we have ITT, mITT, and per-protocol all listed. I like it this way as it helps "tell a story" about what we still don't know about CABG. --Tim Plante 05:13, 27 December 2012 (PST)

Update to STICH (STICHES trial)

Noticed that the STICHES trial (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27040723) came out earlier this year expanding on the results of the STICH trial by examining outcomes at 10 years. This new analysis suggests a mortality benefit at 10 years with CABG + OMT compared to OMT alone. Thoughts on updating this wiki page versus creating a separate page for STICHES?

Rather than doing a full review, a one- or two-line 10-year update can be added to the Major Points section. (I'd be fine with a one-sentence update added to the Bottom Line section too!) Also, remember to sign your talk pages with four tildes (~) in a row! --Tim Plante (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)