bevter - thanks for your contribution, tremendous stuff. 'The trains left the station & building up steam ... wait ... what ... omg we've rolled back to station 006
JS - Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Initially I thought the market may not respond well to even a good ct result mainly because it failed to react to the very positive survey results. Then even though the sp was at .008 when I posted on the ct, my thinking was it's only a matter of time before traders and others realized the lack of data provided to substantiate managements interpretation of 'significant' etc.
The
Probability factor measures whether or not 'chance' is a factor in outcomes. More on that next post.
It does not determine at all things such as degree of effectiveness. Only the unrevealed score comparisons will indicate that.
You make a good point about levelling out in the Oxford scale; that I get. So perhaps it's just an atrociously explained paragraph, suggesting Daly doesn't really get it either.
But there's still no data given us verifying this, only a 'favorable trend'. Does that mean 2/47 improved quicker than 1/47 in the control group? Did any reach level 3, 4 or 5?
You're right, V3 studies are not a trial but will add data analysis and possibly survey/s to that of V2.
Interestingly they'll be aimed at retail consumers rather than frequent clinician clients.
To my mind it's cash and timelines dictating cessation of the ct, and perhaps this is the 'major dilemma' Dr Monsour mentioned in relation to it.
Thanks again JS, more heads are always better than one.
