![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1SzVmffPIzCi09SbJjxbT3XlmbyOksZQWbz_hxViGy9UcajYhk_IxoPXullxUJokx_DqisDOg-EE3dM6PvYJjIzriv8i7vuXo_b1VR3XIMnbPYWrGI6LR7j1xVMlmnbscBhoHYJ7PVxmN/s320/img016.jpg)
two of the slides that were presented by Schatzberg to better illustrate my point. At the bottom of this (top/right) slide, you'll see the following reference "DeBattista et al., Biol Psychiatry, 60(12):1343-9, 2006," which is this study (1). Data from a published clinical trial, accompanied by the appropriate reference below.
In the second slide (bottom/right), at the bottom is this reference "Schatzberg AF et al., J Affective Disorder, 107:S40-41, 2008." As I pointed out in my previous post, this reference is to an abstract that does not mention these data.
Now, I am not suggesting any wrong doing; however, I do wonder, what was the purpose of listing this reference? It's relevance to these data appears to not exist. This much I do know,
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJKm7yldZ1hdWNCs6r1ErY-_38RPNKm2abiOdGjLrUj3aYZ8IjosvYqE_dLzF12DcXNlfDo9ErEUjRGp-iRm3RLiWLckxatKyDvFZcAeIFPqyvL2VlzRvHHbS6fygqlEDbZU68jts39l0I/s320/img017.jpg)
And speaking of misinformation, in the my first post about Schaztberg's presentation (3, post has been corrected), I wrote that he did not indicate 06 was a negative study. He did show a slide, which showed that the primary endpoint was not statistically significant (p=.144). What he primarily focused on, was the secondarily analysis of the data, which said that "there was a statistically significant correlation between plasma levels and clinical outcome achieved during treatment" (4). This is Corcept's and Schatzberg's attempt to turn a negative into a positive, which they have been doing for a couple years now (5).
No comments:
Post a Comment