Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 42, Issue 12, pp 2121–2122 | Cite as

Prone position and VAP incidence in the PROSEVA trial: attention to the causal question when interpreting competing risk analysis—response to comments by Ranzani et al.

Correspondence
  • 283 Downloads

References

  1. 1.
    Ranzani OT, Li Bassi G, Torres A (2016) Prone position and VAP incidence in the PROSEVA trial: attention to the causal question when interpreting competing risk analysis. Intensive Care Med. doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4469-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayzac L, Girard R, Baboi L, Beuret P, Rabilloud M, Richard JC, Guérin C (2016) Ventilator-associated pneumonia in ARDS patients: the impact of prone positioning. A secondary analysis of the PROSEVA trial. Intensive Care Med 42:871–878. doi:10.1007/s00134-015-4167-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Latouche A, Allignol A, Beyersmann J, Labopin L, Fine JP (2013) A competing risks analysis should report results on all cause-specific hazards and cumulative incidence functions. J Clin Epidemiol 66:648–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beyersmann J, Schumacher M, Allignol A (2012) Competing risks and multistate models with R. Springer, New York, pp 89–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital de la Croix-RousseCHU-LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.INSERM 955CréteilFrance

Personalised recommendations