Angio drives TLR, it's just a fact, and it makes perfect sense if you would stop and think about it. It has nothing to do with your statistical argument. Look up the Benestent II clinical trial or talk to an interventional cardiologist. There's proof if you want it.
Listen up. You JNJ pumpers and BSX bashers come over here and twist every little fact and it is OK. You attempt to make a little joke and point out a basic statistical fact and you are labeled chidish.
Can't take it can we? You really are riding a dead horse!
The sampling rate of 43% or 60% or 80% does not matter when the population is 700. Look it up don't believe me. If you start to see differences based on samples of 40% to 80% in populations of that size; you have multiple studies going on with the main study and/or lack of consistency of the procedure/patient/doctor technique etc.
<"You miss my point both companies sampled their populations at a level that was far above what is necessary to prove a the point in question. There is no significance to the argument that BSX undersampled the population as regards to the JNJ sampling.">
I didn't miss your point. My first statement in reply was:
<"You're right that there is nothing sinister about BSX having a lower angio follow-up rate. A trial with a larger enrollment (as Taxus IV had) doesn't need as high a percentage of angios to prove significance (for angio measurements such as late loss).">
I agree with you that the lower angio rate doesn't herald dishonesty - my point is that, motives aside, variations in the angio rate WILL result in variations in TLR, to some extent.
First I ahve to say thanks for the diaolog on this. Second I admit that I misread one of your initial statemenst. Mea culpa. Must have been living too long in the US and lost my ability to read Canadian.
Anyway, I had read that same information on the power analysis before, thanks for the link. I think it is just the perspective I was looking at everything. Power analysis is a great tool for designing a protocol, but in my opinion limited value after the design is complete. If you manage to prove statistical significant with an underpowered study you still have your desired result and a little luck on your side. If you fail to support your claim and it was underpowered well then you messed up your design and you know the person to fire. The power does indicate the likelihood of showing significance if the true effect (usually an unkown) is the same as expected in design .
I was also too focused on REALITY. All we have is conjecture that they chose 5% and 9% as the effect. Though that does follow since the New SIRIUS had a restenosis rate of 5% (if I recall correctly) and there were a few articles a long time back that mentioned if the trials indicated only a 2%-3% difference most physicians would consider CYPHER and TAXUS equivalent in de novo lesions. Thus a clinically significant effect of 4% would be expected. If the true effect were 3%, i.e. 5% vs 8% the study would be 60% powered. The funny thing is that if the true effect was 10% vs 14% the study would be woefully underpowered as well (~60%). So my bigger question is not the power of the study, but did they make the proper assumption for true effect during trial design.
All the CYPHER folks are expecting a huge win, but my gut tells me that they are having troubles getting that conclusion. I firmly believe that if it was a huge win the data would be out there. I will eat my hat if the numbers at ACC are a hands down win.
Once again thank you for a reasoned debate.
Angio drives TVR, becuase many patients that need one won't know it until it's too late -- unless they get an angio. These are the facts, jack.
What's the deal with the JNJ thing on this board? Let's stick to facts and quit calling names and twisting logic, this is not grade school so stop acting like a child.
Hmmm... Now what could be wrong with this logic?? Let me see... If you go to a doctor your chances of dying from medical malpractice go up. By Jove I've got it!! Doctors kill people!!
JNJ rides again!!!
You might be correct in this. My guess is that some of the nonsense on the board is from some shorts. Some of it might be from sources that you suggest. It could be that we saw the bottom today as the stock behaved differently today than it has recently. Volume was good today as well. Volume is always high when the bottom has been hit and the shorts flee the rising tide.