Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

It is generally assumed that the overall results of a clinical trial are generalisable to all patients in the trial and all similar future patients; in other words, that the relative treatment effect in individual patients is similar to the overall trial result. Although this assumption underpins the application of trial results to clinical practice, it has rarely been tested. By independently derived prognostic models, the results of the European Carotid Surgery Trial and the UK-TIA Aspirin Trial were reanalysed to find out whether relative treatment effect varied with absolute baseline risk of stroke. There was significant heterogeneity of relative treatment effect in both trials, resulting in substantial variation in absolute treatment effect with predicted baseline risk. Although, on average, the application of overall trial results to all patients will do more good than harm, a knowledge of the association between relative treatment effect and absolute baseline risk will increase the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions by identifying those patients in whom treatment is ineffective and those patients who are most likely to benefit.


Journal article



Publication Date





1616 - 1619


Aspirin, Carotid Stenosis, Cerebrovascular Disorders, Clinical Trials as Topic, Endarterectomy, Carotid, Humans, Ischemic Attack, Transient, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Prognosis, Risk