EP is a community where members connect through shared life experiences-- like MS--and so much more. You are not defined by any one thing, so be your true self and find others just like you at
Experience Project.
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: Laquinimod trial results
bromley wrote:
Don't appear that impressive - but it's oral.
Unimpressive is definitely the right description. Even drugs that reduce lesions *and* relapses are unimpressive - all this drug does is reduce lesions by a mere 38%.
They also say:
Quote:
Significant differences in favor of the 0.6 mg dose were found for most examined secondary and exploratory MRI-based outcome measures. Trends favored the group receiving the 0.6 mg dose on measures of annual relapse rate (0.52 +/- 0.92 vs. placebo 0.77 +/- 1.25; p = 0.21), relapse-free subjects (70.8 percent vs. 62.7 percent; p = 0.33) and time to first relapse (p = 0.14).
...which is quite offensive really. What it should say is:
Quote:
STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT differences in favor of the 0.6 mg dose were found for most examined secondary and exploratory MRI-based outcome measures. Trends favored the group receiving the 0.6 mg dose on measures of annual relapse rate (0.52 +/- 0.92 vs. placebo 0.77 +/- 1.25; p = 0.21), relapse-free subjects (70.8 percent vs. 62.7 percent; p = 0.33) and time to first relapse (p = 0.14).
The "p=" part must always be <0.05. P values of 0.21, 0.33 and 0.14 mean the data is completely and utterly meaningless.
It's like saying that a glass of water a day has a significant impact on MS, however, there is a high probability this may be false.
Joined: Mar 18, 2007 Posts: 90 Location: Illinios (+ Europe)
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: Re: Laquinimod trial results
mjs wrote:
...which is quite offensive really. What it should say is:
Quote:
STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT differences in favor of the 0.6 mg dose were found for most examined secondary and exploratory MRI-based outcome measures. Trends favored the group receiving the 0.6 mg dose on measures of annual relapse rate (0.52 +/- 0.92 vs. placebo 0.77 +/- 1.25; p = 0.21), relapse-free subjects (70.8 percent vs. 62.7 percent; p = 0.33) and time to first relapse (p = 0.14).
The "p=" part must always be <0.05. P values of 0.21, 0.33 and 0.14 mean the data is completely and utterly meaningless.
It's like saying that a glass of water a day has a significant impact on MS, however, there is a high probability this may be false.
Good work, and thank you the post.
Kind regards,
Tony _________________ "All truth passes through three stages.
First it is ridiculed.
Second it is violently opposed.
Third it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
We encourage you to also visit our Multiple Sclerosis story and support community on Experience Project.
Experience Project is a vast and powerful community where people connect anonymously through life experiences. It's made by the same people who built This is MS,
on the premise that no one life experience-- like having MS-- defines a person. It now covers over 2 million life stories. Find and share yours!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
