Advertisement
Research Article

Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

  • Dariush Mozaffarian mail,

    dmozaffa@hsph.harvard.edu

    Affiliations: Division of Cardiovascular Medicine and Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

    X
  • Renata Micha,

    Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

    X
  • Sarah Wallace

    Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

    X
  • Published: March 23, 2010
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252

Reader Comments (7)

Post a new comment on this article

The numbers are wrong

Posted by Spiritosl on 05 Apr 2010 at 12:11 GMT

Sirs!

This article is interesting. All eight studies included are from the previous century.

I can not find that the numbers are correct.

The sum of % Weight in the last column of figure 2 is 100.20 instead of 100,00.

The sum of Events is 1072. When I divide Events in each of the eight lines with total # of events I get another figure of % Weigth in the last column, I get 124/1072= 11,56 % instead of the first line’s 13,44 %.

When I calculate 13,44% * 1072 (total # of events) I get the answer 144 Events in the first line (LA Veterans) instead of 124 Events.

Summing up all events in a similar way they end up to be 1074. That is two more than the sum of events in the first column. It also explains the discrepancy of sums of % Weight, 100.00 written in the table vs 100.20 summed in the very same column .

So all numbers in that last column are wrong.

Are there any numbers that are correct?

How come this article is peer reviewed and the peer did not find this discrepancy?

I am baffled

No competing interests declared.

RE: The numbers are wrong

npatel replied to Spiritosl on 11 Apr 2010 at 20:27 GMT

Mr. Hammarskjöld, your concerns about the accuracy of the numbers are unfounded. The weights shown in the last column are rounded, which would explain why you calculate a sum of 100.02%.

The sum of the events is 1042, as reported in the text of the paper. Furthermore, the weights are derived using inverse variances - not the number of events, which is why your calculations yield a different result.

No competing interests declared.