Conference Call Summary, page-41

Conf call just ended. The issue of confidence intervals not being reported in Aussie studies was raised. TK said not reported in Aussie studies because they did not need to, but he is happy to make that info available.

IMO, this is a non issue. As I posted yesterday:

"Hi Mighty China – re the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for the Australian data. I don't believe that is of any concern. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the 95% CI to represent +/- 2 standard deviations (SDs). Now, in any scientific publication that I have seen where statistics are involved, 2 SDs ie 95% CI is the minimum – 3 SDs ie 99% CI is sometimes quoted, but 1 SD ie 66% CI is NEVER used, for obvious reasons, and nor are fractional SDs.

So, I don't see why you are making a fuss over this. BUT, I agree, the CI should have been stated in the reports, if as you say they were not."

Also, some posters have been confusing the endpoint accuracy target of 75%, with the CI of 95% - please note IMO 95% is not a measure of accuracy, it reflects the range within which accurate results are expected to fall (or something similar, I'm not sure of the wording).