All your points are well taken. But, if the investigators had used a 99.7% CI, this would really not have been a "positive" study.
(Of course, we would have missed an opportunity to learning about importance of circumspection about "positive" results with little clinical impact and the problems with adding end-points that might not really be meaningful.)
All your points are well taken. But, if the investigators had used a 99.7% CI, this would really not have been a "positive" study.
(Of course, we would have missed an opportunity to learning about importance of circumspection about "positive" results with little clinical impact and the problems with adding end-points that might not really be meaningful.)
Thank you for sharing.
All your points are well taken. But, if the investigators had used a 99.7% CI, this would really not have been a "positive" study.
(Of course, we would have missed an opportunity to learning about importance of circumspection about "positive" results with little clinical impact and the problems with adding end-points that might not really be meaningful.)