On 2017 Feb 19, james brophy commented:

The authors conclude prophylactic ICD implantation "was not associated with a significantly lower long-term rate of death from any cause than was usual clinical care”. Given the observed hazard rate for death was 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.12; P=0.28), this conclusion is quite simply wrong, unless a potential 32% reduction in death is considered clinically unimportant. The aphorism "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" is worth recalling.

On 2017 Feb 19, james brophy commented:

The authors conclude prophylactic ICD implantation "was not associated with a significantly lower long-term rate of death from any cause than was usual clinical care”. Given the observed hazard rate for death was 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.12; P=0.28), this conclusion is quite simply wrong, unless a potential 32% reduction in death is considered clinically unimportant. The aphorism "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" is worth recalling.