(Total Views: 738)
Posted On: 10/25/2020 10:08:42 AM
Post# of 154996
Blafarm,
Thanks for your feedback.
My point was is that the DSMC could have simply said, hey guys continue to full enrollment.
Instead they said: Let's check the data again at 75% enrollment.
Why? Because the considered that with 75% of patients we can probably meet statistical significance (p + power).
Those where my words, noting else, nothing more. I did not say that they had SAID that.
So, the FACTS here are they are taking another look at 75% rather than 100%. one can take this as a negative. Not me, I take it as an encouraging sign.
Sure we will be approved then ??? Not really (likely to me). One has to ascertain the possible risk/reward as with any other outcomes.
This is the name of the game. Isn't it ???
Thanks for your feedback.
My point was is that the DSMC could have simply said, hey guys continue to full enrollment.
Instead they said: Let's check the data again at 75% enrollment.
Why? Because the considered that with 75% of patients we can probably meet statistical significance (p + power).
Those where my words, noting else, nothing more. I did not say that they had SAID that.
So, the FACTS here are they are taking another look at 75% rather than 100%. one can take this as a negative. Not me, I take it as an encouraging sign.
Sure we will be approved then ??? Not really (likely to me). One has to ascertain the possible risk/reward as with any other outcomes.
This is the name of the game. Isn't it ???
(7)
(0)
