jsblvbjb (our piano player) and b_leagured(fudfighter4) and technkl99 (objective view)
Could you two clowns stop making up blcht,and wait to see what happens.We all know there is questions with the poster,but also with the company.As usuual you are spinning and guessing and have no background to comment. here is one that rings true
You make an interesting point, but looking at Fig 4 it actually seems like something was at best mislabeled. If you look week to week there are earlier weeks with fewer patients than later weeks, suggesting they did not impute missing values and/or allowed subjects who missed a rating to continue on. That would suggest possible inclusion of possible protocol villagers, precisely why a PP analysis is rarely used. In any event, per other posts, what AF missed, including the above, is that if a PP analysis was specified there is no problem. If it was not, there is no dispute from the poster that different populations were used for the primary versus other endpoints, and that could be an issue. Finally, you are mistaken in assuming that the 128 patients in a PP population would have to overlap with the 128 patients in the mITT populations.