"Could you explain how 2:1 was a mistake? Positive
Post# of 145552
I've read many times that from a statistical standpoint, 2:1 is generally a hindrance compared to 1:1 but was done for ethical reasons. Pardon me if that's not always true. So my point is we would have gotten even better results with 1:1 (again purely from a statistical standpoint but helped less patients get better), perhaps even reaching stat significance for the primary endpoint if 1:1 was used?
![Like This Post](/images/thumb-up.png)
![Dislike This Post](/images/thumb-down.png)