Yes, stupidly was thinking 11% was better and must
Post# of 154991
(Total Views: 504)
Posted On: 03/05/2021 11:31:09 PM
Re: Borel Fields #81161
Yes, stupidly was thinking 11% was better and must be LL. I got confused with mortality outcome, where lower is better. Was working on the note while cable guy was here for 2.5 hours trying to fix something. Long week.
Had sent you a PM when I saw your post with the correct numbers.
Thanks for calculating the numbers the right way.
It sounds like you are assuming the 24% improvement is a relative risk reduction, which is probably correct.
Assuming so and taking the "better" possibility, with placebo mortality say 57.9% (11/19) and leronlimab lowering it to 44.2% (19/43), and that those numbers bore out in a larger trial, what is the number needed with those percentages to get a statistically significant finding?
Had sent you a PM when I saw your post with the correct numbers.
Thanks for calculating the numbers the right way.
It sounds like you are assuming the 24% improvement is a relative risk reduction, which is probably correct.
Assuming so and taking the "better" possibility, with placebo mortality say 57.9% (11/19) and leronlimab lowering it to 44.2% (19/43), and that those numbers bore out in a larger trial, what is the number needed with those percentages to get a statistically significant finding?
(0)
(0)