...We Welcome You To The Resverlogix HUB withIn The AGORACOM COMMUNITY!

Free
AGORACOM NEWS FLASH

Dear Agoracom Family,

I want to thank all of you for your patience with us over the past 48 hours and apologize for what was admittedly a botched launch of our new site.

As you can see, we have reverted back to the previous version of the site while we address multiple forum functionality flaws that inexplicably made their way into the launch.

To this end:

1.We have identified 8 fundamental but easily fixable flaws that will be corrected in the coming week, so that you can continue to use the forums exactly as you've been accustomed to.

2.Additionally we will also be implementing a couple of design improvements to "tighten up" the look and feel of the forums.

Sincerely,

George et al

Message: 0.05 P-values -- A bridge too far ?

2nd para: Yes. In layman’s terms, P=0.06 means that even if the drug actually has no real effect, the observed difference between the placebo and treated groups would have occurred 6 times out of every 100.

The convention that P must be less than 0.05 is purely arbitrary. There is no scientific basis for that cut-off.

P= 0.05 corresponds to a 1 in 20 chance. There are circumstances in which some clinical trialists think this is too high, and others in which they think it is too low. Statisticians generally tend to think in terms of absolute probabilities (like P=0.0762), but clinical trialists and the FDA have to make yes/no decisions, and so are forced to use a cut-off P value. The P value of 0.05 is the same for all studies, and unrelated to the seriousness of the disease. This is because their only concern is whether or not the drug is effective. The same yardstick is used, whether the drug is for brain cancer or a pimple on your nose.

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply