(Total Views: 597)
Posted On: 06/09/2022 6:23:50 PM
Post# of 155707
I think they made a mistake on the full analysis CT1:
looking at the 350mg n=21 avg of -24.38ms. This can't be right.
if you have 350mg n=13 >875ms at -42.0
and if you have 350mg n =7 > 950ms at -68.86. all n = 21 350mg must have an average between -42 and -68.86. It can not be -24.38.
The weighted average of all n= 21 average of all 350mg is -49ms:
(13(-42.0ms) + 7(-68.86ms))/21 = -49ms.
That means if you give 350mg once / week for 14 weeks to an average patient with NAS of 5, you can expect his NAS to drop by 1. After 14 weeks, his NAS would have gone from an NAS of 5 to an NAS of 4.
How could they have made this mistake?? or am I?
looking at the 350mg n=21 avg of -24.38ms. This can't be right.
if you have 350mg n=13 >875ms at -42.0
and if you have 350mg n =7 > 950ms at -68.86. all n = 21 350mg must have an average between -42 and -68.86. It can not be -24.38.
The weighted average of all n= 21 average of all 350mg is -49ms:
(13(-42.0ms) + 7(-68.86ms))/21 = -49ms.
That means if you give 350mg once / week for 14 weeks to an average patient with NAS of 5, you can expect his NAS to drop by 1. After 14 weeks, his NAS would have gone from an NAS of 5 to an NAS of 4.
How could they have made this mistake?? or am I?
(1)
(0)
