Posted by seldomseen on January 6, 2008, at 16:08:03
In reply to Re: correlation does not imply causality » Larry Hoover, posted by Jamal Spelling on January 6, 2008, at 15:10:29
"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."
Actually that's not how that data should be interpreted. If 40% of patients spontaneously remitted and 67% remitted on with drugs, then 67% still remitted on drugs.
The only valid conclusion is that more subjects remitted on drugs than with no treatment.
We don't know how many people the drugs actually helped, just that more remitted while on them.
I think everyone(and I'm not on one side or the other) have to be very careful how they interpret the data.
poster:seldomseen
thread:804126
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080105/msgs/804660.html