2 ms·
> while the graphic used seems to imply a trend, it seems like more data would be needed to conclusively show that trend. And you can tell that by looking at t
by bjornsing 11y ago
> while the graphic used seems to imply a trend, it seems like more data would be needed to conclusively show that trend.
And you can tell that by looking at the graphic...? There's also a reference to a X2-test with p=0.0005 (meaning that there's a 0.05% chance that the trend you see is accidental and would disappear with more data).
I think you're right to be skeptical (correlation is not causation and so on...), but not that too little data is the problem here.
- JangoSteve 11y agoBy too little data, I didn't mean that they should have collected more data, I meant that it would be nice to see a) other changes within the drug industry from the 90s and early 2000s that may or may not have contributed plotted on the same graph (not just a single line for this one rule as if that's the only event to affect clinical trials since the 70s), and b) more clinical trial outcome data into the future. More generally, I meant that it's hard to attribute historical events conclusively to specific cause-and-effect, because we can never rewind time in order to change one variable and observer its effects.