Download PDFPDF
Original research
Delayed thromboembolic events after coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in a prospective cohort of 335 patients
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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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:

  • Published on:
    The number of clinical events per variable in logistic regression analysis

    Dear Editor,

    I read with interest the paper by Pierot et al [1]. They conducted a prospective study to examine factors of delayed thromboembolic events in 335 patients after coiling of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. The number of delayed TEEs was 8. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and post-procedure aneurysm remnant at procedure completion for delayed TEEs were 27.3 (3.9 to 190.2) and 9.9 (1.0 to 51.3), respectively. They understand the lack of statistical power in the multivariate analysis and did not intend to examine the causal association. I present a comment regarding the number of events in logistic regression analysis.

    The limitation in the total number of events for logistic regression analysis was simulated to improve statistical power [2]. In addition, Peduzzi et al. evaluated the effect of the number of events per variable (EPV) on the outcome in logistic regression analysis [3], concluding that the number of EPV less than 10 has some problems for the prediction of dependent variable. There is an opinion that EPV value less than 10 is also acceptable to evaluate the association by logistic regression analysis [4]. Pierot et al. observed 8 events, which was not appropriate for multivariate analysis even for examining the association instead of prediction in a prospective study. I think that wide ranges of 95% confidence intervals may reflect unstable estimates in a logistic regr...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.