Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: correlation does not imply causality Larry Hoover

Posted by Jamal Spelling on January 6, 2008, at 15:10:29

In reply to Re: correlation does not imply causality Jamal Spelling, posted by Larry Hoover on January 6, 2008, at 14:20:10

> Are you suggesting that if you followed a group of untreated subjects comprised of ~50% recurrent depressives, and ~30% chronic depressives, that after 56 weeks, 67% would be in full remission?

My main point is that STAR*D does not prove that the drug/CBT regimen used remits depression with a 67% success rate, yet that is what many people are claiming. One can only say that 67% of patients who follow this regimen will remit after 56 weeks, but not necessarily as a result of the regimen.

For example, a similarly comprised untreated group might have a remission rate of 40% after 56 weeks, which would imply that the STAR*D algorithm really only works for 26% of patients. Then the abstract would have to read something like "The study demonstrates that 26% of depression patients can be brought into remission by 56 weeks as a result of following the STAR*D algorithm". And that doesn't sound as good.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:Jamal Spelling thread:804126