RE:Question ...MUGMODs wrote: Page 15 of the latest ATE presentation shows a history of WOMAC pain scores and I see an outlier from 2016 ... Dr. Hochberg studies.
That study has since been retracted but I don't know why.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30002-2/fulltext Would that mean our ATE is scoring the best w.r.t. WOMAC as per the slide on page 15 ?
Sorry in advance if this has already been discussed.
Mugmods, as no one else has commented on your post, let me offer the following. Reason for the retraction: Quote:
"On March 17, 2016, The Lancet published online a network meta-analysis of the effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis, and the Article was published in print on May 21, 2016.1 On July 6, 2016, the authors drew our attention to two missed trials2, 3 and a duplicate publication.4, 5 Lancet editors discussed the corrections that were needed in the paper, and decided, in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics' guidelines, that because of the extent of the changes necessary, the previous version of the Article should be retracted and a corrected version republished after reanalysis and rereview.
Today we retract the previous version and republish online the corrected version of the Article,6 in which the findings are slightly changed—ie, confidence intervals around the effects have changed slightly, mainly in the second digit after the decimal point, and the test for a linear dose effect is now significant for only one preparation (but was for three in the previous publication). The overall message remains the same. The previous version of the Article has been added to the appendix in the new version and is marked retracted."
Here is the abstract of the revised article.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31744-0/fulltext
These published results are confusing to me. The retracted original report was a meta-analysis, which included, interalia, many common Nsaids such as Naproxen. Why are these results so much more effective as compared to other published results, including, ATB-346. These are at variance with Antibe's experience and many other studies to boot. Smoke and mirrors? Or a rational explanation? Don't know. But don't want published results such as these to confuse FDA administrators. Would appreciate any comments. Back to fetal mode.