tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post58514633645692699..comments2024-01-11T10:42:04.473+00:00Comments on Hawk/Handsaw: Fun with trials, for homeopathy awareness week...Paul Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-4719207684897786322008-06-25T12:53:00.000+01:002008-06-25T12:53:00.000+01:00People like you can not understand anything beyond...<I>People like you can not understand anything beyond the dictates of MNC pharma companies!</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I'm still waiting for my cheque.<BR/><BR/>In all seriousness, though, Relieva is not being handed out for free. According to <A HREF="http://www.relievaforpsoriasis.com/about-relieva-us.html" REL="nofollow">this</A>, it starts at $9.95 for the "lotion, cream and shampoo". It's just as much about making money as any of the big pharmaceutical companies are.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-11384024037614459912008-06-25T12:26:00.000+01:002008-06-25T12:26:00.000+01:00anonymous:It's always possible that my analysis of...anonymous:<BR/><BR/>It's always possible that my analysis of this paper is incorrect, but it doesn't get us very far if you don't bother to explain why you think it is incorrect.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-66882483681327246242008-06-23T17:57:00.000+01:002008-06-23T17:57:00.000+01:00The whole article shows you started with a bias an...The whole article shows you started with a bias and miserably and pitiably concluded with a bias. People like you can not understand anything beyond the dictates of MNC pharma companies! You views are a fine example of how people analyse without knowing a subject nor willing to know it lest it will call your bluff! <BR/> Never mind - Homoeopathy will stay. In India it is common seen as this- when elephants walk majestically on the streets a number of street dogs bark, but the elephnats move on majestically!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-68515025274133760272008-06-23T11:08:00.000+01:002008-06-23T11:08:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13486633960617131326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-77276866858346088952008-06-21T14:32:00.000+01:002008-06-21T14:32:00.000+01:00I see that The Cochrane Collaboration is now offer...I see that The Cochrane Collaboration is now offering a regular column on <A HREF="http://news.cochrane.org/view/item/review_one.jsp?j=1242" REL="nofollow">CAM Cochrane Reports in <I>Explore</I></A>. Would it be a Frightfully Good Idea if some homeopathy journals were to implement a similar scheme?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-4194574994293473542008-06-21T14:03:00.000+01:002008-06-21T14:03:00.000+01:00Another point worth making is that while the trial...Another point worth making is that while the trial appears to show statistically significant results, it's not clear how clinically significant they are. The analysis is based only on the change in PASI and Quality of Life indexes. <A HREF="http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2005.06.017" REL="nofollow">Here</A>'s an article discussing end-points for psoriasis trials. According to the article, the FDA standard for clinical effectiveness is a 75% reduction in PASI. According to the Bernstein et al. study, mean PASI in the treatment group was initially 6.93, with a mean change of -3.58 at the end of the study: a reduction of 51.7%. In the control group, there was a mean 2.22 point reduction in PASI, from an initial value of 6.85: a reduction of 32.4%. Of course, we don't know how many in each group acheived a clinically significant reduction in PASI, and the article doesn't define a clinically significant endpoint.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-44884927199864583822008-06-21T13:43:00.000+01:002008-06-21T13:43:00.000+01:00Cheers, apgaylard.The randomisation looks to be OK...Cheers, apgaylard.<BR/><BR/>The randomisation looks to be OK: the PASI scores were similar for both groups at the start of the experiment. But it's possible that subjects in the control group were disproportionately approaching a flare-up, as you say.<BR/><BR/>Just to clarify that the total drop-out rate was 14.5%, the 26% figure is for the control group. That still seems high though.Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-6483427574189012902008-06-20T22:13:00.000+01:002008-06-20T22:13:00.000+01:00Nice deconstruction. The drop-out rate in the con...Nice deconstruction. The drop-out rate in the control (placebo) group is very large. At the risk of seeming like a Bausell Booster, "Did 25% or more of the participants drop out of the study before it was over? (If so this will invalidate the study regardless of its results)."<BR/><BR/>Looks like the drop-out rate (at 26%) is large enough to get an experienced research methodolgist to call the results invalid.<BR/><BR/>It may also indicate a problem with the placebo or randomisation. Was the placebo indistinguishable - or could the control group tell that they wern't getting the 'treatment'? Were the subjects in the control group disproportionately approaching a flare-up when the study started?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, good work as ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com