Responses

PDF

Barriers and facilitators to adherence to secondary stroke prevention medications after stroke: analysis of survivors and caregivers views from an online stroke forum
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Wilfully misleading or simply negligent?

    In the study you say:

    "Although statins are known to reduce the risk of stroke by as much as 25%,38 benefits are undermined by suboptimal adherence. In a previous examination on patient perspectives around statin therapy, compliance with statins was associated with information provided during the practitioner consultation as well as the beliefs about cholesterol and current health status"

    'As much as 25%'

    The reference you give is to this paper:

    Afilalo J , Duque G , Steele R , et al . Statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients: a hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:37–45.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.063 FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar

    The paper very clearly refers to RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION.

    Read this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

    In fact the ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION is about 1%

    By stating 25% and NOT saying it is RRR you create a scare story for newspapers which creates stress for stroke survivors plus you mislead the public who think that by taking statins their risk of stroke falls by 25% which is simply not true.

    Did you do so wilfully to fit a pharma-dictated criteria or were you just negligent?

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.