Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cacaito who wrote (14569)	9/15/2000 3:33:48 PM
From: manfredhasler	Respond to of 17367

Cacaito, Re: And the P for less amputations was 0.06... Just for the audience. It is by convention to consider a p of less than 0.05 as statistically significant in biological systems - like in this type of studies. A p of 0.01 or even 0.001 would be highly statistically significant. I would not mind to label a p of 0.06 as almost statistically significant. The labeling does not matter. Even with a statistically significant result we have to deal with a possible error in the study result: wrongly significant results or so called type two errors. I do however not agree with you that we needed much more patients to get "statistical significance". I guess this has been computed by the people in charge of the study design well in advance of the start of the study. And exactly that would be interesting to know if one wants to blame anybody for the outcome ... If I look at the study results my problem is that the researchers did not address the obvious flaws in the study design. Maybe they primarily wanted a publication in a prestigious medical journal ... I definitely would be interested in the original study protocol and some more information on the detailed analysis ... Regards, Manfred