InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
5,544.59
(
-0.78%
)
US TECH 100
19,234.00
(
-0.19%
)
Dow Jones
40,665.02
(
-1.29%
)
Brent Oil
83.90
(
-0.22%
)
Bitcoin
63,569.20
(
-0.62%
)
Post# of 252638
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (2) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next

iwfal

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 75
Posts 4700
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/06/2003

iwfal

Member Level

Re: Biowatch post# 30953

Wednesday, 07/05/2006 9:02:18 AM

Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:02:18 AM

Post# of 252638
The results showed that 16 of 21 (76%) patients showed a statistically significant decrease in the rate of rise of PSA (PSA slope) post-treatment compared with the remaining five patients (p<0.001).

Very peculiar sentence. Are they saying that the 16 of 21 are differentiated from the other 5 of 21 only by their changing PSA slope? Heads I win, tails you lose? (i.e. you just have to test PSA slope twice, know that some patients will have declining PSA slopes, others increasing slopes, divide them in two by that criteria and then look at the difference of the means to get a stat sig trial. COOL!!!)

Normally I'd assume that that was just an error - no one would say something that silly. But no place else in the PR does it explain other differentiating factors.


Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (2) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up