This substudy is insanity and stupidity wrapped into one. And an embarrassment that it’s in JACC.
That said, SELECT itself is practice-changing.
I’m no trialist but I like how hierchical analysis is used. It allows something (potentially) to be scientifically validly concluded upon beyond the primary endpoint. I’d like to understand more b…
This substudy is insanity and stupidity wrapped into one. And an embarrassment that it’s in JACC.
That said, SELECT itself is practice-changing.
I’m no trialist but I like how hierchical analysis is used. It allows something (potentially) to be scientifically validly concluded upon beyond the primary endpoint. I’d like to understand more btw the strengths and weaknesses of such a trial design, vs a total events analysis (as opposed to time to first event) to allow more of the study data to be utilized.
Regardless, they should’ve stopped when the first hierchical analysis was non-insignificant. And this is probably a hypothesis that isn’t even worth generating.
This substudy is insanity and stupidity wrapped into one. And an embarrassment that it’s in JACC.
That said, SELECT itself is practice-changing.
I’m no trialist but I like how hierchical analysis is used. It allows something (potentially) to be scientifically validly concluded upon beyond the primary endpoint. I’d like to understand more btw the strengths and weaknesses of such a trial design, vs a total events analysis (as opposed to time to first event) to allow more of the study data to be utilized.
Regardless, they should’ve stopped when the first hierchical analysis was non-insignificant. And this is probably a hypothesis that isn’t even worth generating.