Yep, still here. Like listening to Abba, checking out this...

Yep, still here. Like listening to Abba, checking out this forum now and again is a guilty pleasure. Agree this meta-analysis and the comparison with Panco is majorly flawed - I think I said the same when they released it last year - but as suhm says it didn't prevent CE mark award. Looks like it was done by a health economist consulting group in Sydney and has osl CEO as author which raises a flag. They say in poster they based it on (copied??) another meta-analysis by Chang- Ref 5. Luckily that paper is available online, I had a look, that meta-analysis was done for different reason and those authors have been balanced enough to comment on all the limitations- outdated practices and ineffective chemo in most trials. So if I've got this straight OSL has taken it, made some tweaks and published here but failed to mention the same major limitations. You stack the deck in your favour you get the answer you want, yep panco shows statistically significant greater survival for the obvious reason of much better chemo they used. It's a no-brainer.
If Telstra ran an advertising campaign saying their broadband speeds are 20 x faster than their competitors, but turns out they were using 15 year old competitor information to compare with we'd all laugh. Well comparing panco results with this meta-analysis and going "look panco is superior" is kind of doing the same thing.
And yeah- the second poster- that's not an update. During capital raise OSL hinted to market they expected survival to be "even longer" than 16m, so why didn't they provide updated results in this poster? It's a fair question isn't it?