Connect
← Return to Are we overdosing Reclast???
Discussion
Osteoporosis & Bone Health | Last Active: Oct 23 5:06pm | Replies (88)
Comment receiving replies
It seems to me they are pushing the limits of statistical comparison, especially with this being a small study. I would love to know what the results would be if they repeated the BMD readings on the day following the first ones. There is an error associated with each reading although they minimized that by using the same equipment and having only one radiologist for all readings.
Did you look at the graph of BMD over time? Especially look at the std dev limits shown. Side of the barn!!!!
Replies to "It seems to me they are pushing the limits of statistical comparison, especially with this being..."
Connect
@normahorn Hi again.
I take it that the 3rd study bothers you in that the number of patients involved may not be great enough to prove their conclusions. Adding to that we know that DXA's are not nearly as exact as we would like. So, I think I understand your general meaning.
As to what you are talking about specifically with the graph of BMD over time I'm not sure what exactly you mean. I might have to be standing next to you, with you pointing at a blow up of the chart to really get it? Maybe because the chart overwhelms me with numbers?
My biggest problem with the study is the authors interpretation of the data. In the third study the spine is a little better with high dose and the hips are a little better with the low dose. They do some statistical maneuvers I don't understand and declare the spine and the high dose the winner. That's what puts the burr under my saddle.
We both seem to be bothered by such a strong conclusion (high dose Reclast wins) when there are multiple reasons to question that or to at least point out how very little difference in saving bone there is between the two doses. Hope I didn't misconstrue your views. Correct me if I did.