Download PDFPDF

The effect of magnesium supplementation on vascular calcification in chronic kidney disease—a randomised clinical trial (MAGiCAL-CKD): essential study design and rationale
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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Iain Bressendorff, Ditte Hansen, Morten Schou, Charlotte Kragelund and Lisbet Brandi
    Published on:
  • Published on:
    Changes to Statistical Plan
    • Iain Bressendorff, Nephrology Fellow Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
    • Other Contributors:
      • Ditte Hansen, Consultant Nephrologist
      • Morten Schou, Consultant Cardiologist
      • Charlotte Kragelund, Consultant Cardiologist
      • Lisbet Brandi, Consultant Nephrologist

    We hereby write to inform the readers of changes to the statistical plan for our clinical trial MAGiCAL-CKD, which we have previously published in BMJ Open. At the time of writing, the trial is still on-going and the data set has not been unblinded. Thus, any changes to the statistical plan at this time will not compromise the integrity of the trial design.
    The purpose of the MAGiCAL-CKD trial is to examine the effect of magnesium (Mg) supplementation on coronary artery calcification (CAC) score in patients with chronic kidney disease. The original statistical plan was to analyse the change in CAC score from week 0 to week 52 (delta CAC score) and compare the delta CAC score between the two treatment groups. The choice of delta CAC as the primary endpoint (and not the between-group difference in CAC score at week 52) was made due to the potential for an imbalance in CAC score between the two treatment groups at week 0. The delta CAC was thought to better account for any baseline imbalance. However, since the publication of the trial protocol we have become aware that this methodology is flawed and that the correct analysis is to perform an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of CAC score between the two treatment groups at week 52 adjusted for CAC score, age and prevalent diabetes mellitus (yes/no) at week 0. Therefore, the ANCOVA test will be applied to analyse the primary endpoint. Essentially, we are examining the same scientific question, but using better methodology...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.