Sorry for my poor statistical knowledge but I wonder:
Let’s say (I am not referring to any specific study), a 3-year study of finasteride, only 200 patients out of 500 patients follow up to 3 years and the response rate of these 200 patients was quite high, say 70% (140 out of 200) and the sides occur at about 1% (2 out of 200) and therefore, they concluded that the drug is effective and minimal sides.
BUT, the fact is that 300 patients who did not follow up the entire study, quitted it, due to many reasons, including side effects, shedding more hair, non-responders, etc. and these patients are excluded from the conclusion. So, is it fair and logical to draw the conclusion based on only 200 (best responders) out of 500 random-picked (may be including 300 non or poor responders) patients ? If this is the case, the actual efficacy may only be 40-50% if we include those non/poor responders (those quitted) ?
I started to feel such studies are very biased though, what are your thoughts ?
Let’s say (I am not referring to any specific study), a 3-year study of finasteride, only 200 patients out of 500 patients follow up to 3 years and the response rate of these 200 patients was quite high, say 70% (140 out of 200) and the sides occur at about 1% (2 out of 200) and therefore, they concluded that the drug is effective and minimal sides.
BUT, the fact is that 300 patients who did not follow up the entire study, quitted it, due to many reasons, including side effects, shedding more hair, non-responders, etc. and these patients are excluded from the conclusion. So, is it fair and logical to draw the conclusion based on only 200 (best responders) out of 500 random-picked (may be including 300 non or poor responders) patients ? If this is the case, the actual efficacy may only be 40-50% if we include those non/poor responders (those quitted) ?
I started to feel such studies are very biased though, what are your thoughts ?
Last edited:
