Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011
Estimating treatment effects for individual patients based on the results of randomised clinical trials.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00239681 (A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study of Rosuvastatin), which is not on this map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled, Multicenter, Phase 3 Study of Rosuvastatin (CRESTOR®) 20 mg in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events Among Subjects With Low Levels of Low Density Lipoprotein(LDL) Cholesterol & Elevated Levels of C-Reactive Protein
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 176 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of an Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence Risk Estimation Tool Incorporating Real-World Data and Evidence From Meta-Analyses: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. The TRIPOD Group.Circulation · 2015Guideline
- Trial
- Causal AI-based clinical and radiomic analysis for optimizing patient selection in combined immunotherapy and SABR in early-stage NSCLC: a secondary analysis of the phase II I-SABR trial.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Trial
- Relationship Between Phenotyping and Individualized Absolute Risk Differences in Sepsis: A Secondary Analysis of Two Approaches in Two Multicenter Trials.Critical care explorations · 2025Trial
- Incorporating Individual-Level Treatment Effects and Outcome Preferences Into Personalized Blood Pressure Target Recommendations.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Trial
- Quantifying dementia prevention potential in the FINGER randomized controlled trial using the LIBRA prevention index.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2021Trial
- Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: Derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials.PLoS medicine · 2017 · on this mapTrial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Intensifying Lipid-Lowering Therapy With Statins Based on Individual Absolute Benefit in Coronary Artery Disease Patients.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017Trial
- Individualised prediction of alternate-day aspirin treatment effects on the combined risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal bleeding in healthy women.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2015Trial
- Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment: risk based reanalysis of Diabetes Prevention Program.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Trial
- Aspirin for primary prevention of vascular events in women: individualized prediction of treatment effects.European heart journal · 2011Trial
- How to determine the optimal duration of anticoagulation for VTE: an evidence-based decision-analytical approach.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Prevention: Current Gaps and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Post 90-day outcomes of acute ischemic stroke patients following thrombectomy: analysis of real-world data.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Predicting Individual Treatment Effects: Challenges and Opportunities for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.Kunstliche intelligenz · 2025Article
- Prediction of individual lifetime cardiovascular risk and potential treatment benefit: development and recalibration of the LIFE-CVD2 model to four European risk regions.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2024Article
- Origins and Previous Applications of Causal-Benefit Models.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Development and validation of risk prediction model for recurrent cardiovascular events among Chinese: the Personalized CARdiovascular DIsease risk Assessment for Chinese model.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
- The perpetual need of randomized clinical trials: challenges and uncertainties in emulating the REDUCE-AMI trial.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo predict treatment effects for individual patients based on data from randomised trials, taking rosuvastatin treatment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease as an example, and to evaluate the net benefit of making treatment decisions for individual patients based on a predicted absolute treatment effect.
settingAs an example, data were used from the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention (JUPITER) trial, a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of rosuvastatin 20 mg daily versus placebo on the occurrence of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, arterial revascularisation, admission to hospital for unstable angina, or death from cardiovascular causes). Population 17,802 healthy men and women who had low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 3.4 mmol/L and high sensitivity C reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg/L or more.
methodsData from the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention trial were used to predict rosuvastatin treatment effect for individual patients based on existing risk scores (Framingham and Reynolds) and on a newly developed prediction model. We compared the net benefit of prediction based rosuvastatin treatment (selective treatment of patients whose predicted treatment effect exceeds a decision threshold) with the net benefit of treating either everyone or no one.
resultsThe median predicted 10 year absolute risk reduction for cardiovascular events was 4.4% (interquartile range 2.6-7.0%) based on the Framingham risk score, 4.2% (2.5-7.1%) based on the Reynolds score, and 3.9% (2.5-6.1%) based on the newly developed model (optimal fit model). Prediction based treatment was associated with more net benefit than treating everyone or no one, provided that the decision threshold was between 2% and 7%, and thus that the number willing to treat (NWT) to prevent one cardiovascular event over 10 years was between 15 and 50.
conclusionsData from randomised trials can be used to predict treatment effect in terms of absolute risk reduction for individual patients, based on a newly developed model or, if available, existing risk scores. The value of such prediction of treatment effect for medical decision making is conditional on the NWT to prevent one outcome event. Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00239681.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.