RE:RE:RE:Italian sensation Dr.Claudio Ronco...
On not hard evidence (e.g. literature), we can only guess.
We have "vague" statements that lead us to believe we would be presented with great results.
We were fed several bits of information 30% to 50% CM and 62% non-consent M.
If we were somewhere around 50% CM mid trial, there is no way we could have 45% for the last 176 patients.
Of course, the 30% and 50% don't compute for me at patient 371. But it seems those numbers were never corrected.
270 patients before protocol change at CM 30% would be 81 patients dying.
371 = randomized patients, 50% CM on average, would be 185 patients dying
101 patients randomized since protocol change: 185-81=104/101 patients dying
So more patients dying that the total new patients randomized. I would gladly accept if someone would correct me, but for now, I see two numbers, and maybe both are incorrect. Ronco was incorrect, unless proven by a text document, that this was an abdominal trial. Their endpoint count in their last NR was wrong. You say they were wrong on their last 180 patients.
So how can we count on them about vague secondary end points, or a very fine but not qualified 18%... we can hope, we can bet, but considering how I was confident prior to results, I can't say I will believe anything coming from them, other than "we are sorry, we mislead you..."