SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Biomaven who wrote (23745)5/22/2007 1:07:17 PM
From: kenhott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 52153
 
At least two committees in congress will look into this and the press has been on full coverage. I know people want everything to be safe and cost pennies and to be disease free. And you can't go wrong selling this bundle of goods to the public. But it just hurts my senses to see this charade. I guess no one will watch TV or be elected if they pitch no drug is safe, new drug costs money to develop, and people don't need most drugs if people will get off their big fat behinds and don't have your cake and eat it too.



To: Biomaven who wrote (23745)5/22/2007 9:41:57 PM
From: Clarksterh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 52153
 
And what is the basis for excluding trials where there were no events?

Meta-analysis is arcane and I do not know the detailed rules - but this particular question is actually easy:

Given the different protocols you cannot combine the trials - so you have to do something similar to saying that the trials are independent and then multiplying the p values of the various trials. But trials with no events have a p=1.0. So 'including' them or 'excluding' them is just semantics.

As for

But why total up the number of infarcts with and without the drug across the trials then?

I agree that was silly. It implies that you can combine the trials when you clearly cannot. Was it something in the Press Release vs the article itself?

Clark