| Skeptic 2006-06-26, 9:27 pm |
|
"BrentB" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151370264.707858.30250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Skeptic wrote:
>
> I like it. kill biofilms and you can probably kill anything.
It isn't the ideal endpoint. How do we know if the biofilm was clinically
meaningful? We don't. But it's not terrible either. Just not ideal.
>
> I don't get the point of blinded trials in circumstances such as this.
> We have enough data to understand traditional rates of catheter
> infections. Either a product improves on it or it doesn't.
Then you don't understand the whole point behind blinded experiments.
Without blinding in this sort of situation, you open the door widely to
biases, which are very real and can and do influence outcomes.
>
> I agree, they were infected everywhere except at the catheter site.
> interesting.
I'll need to see the data before I can comment on that.
> "In group II, two patients had positive blood cultures yet a
> microbiologically sterile central venous catheter (CVC)"
If group I had zero to 2 positive blood cultures, then group I was as or
more effective than group II based on this limited study. I don't know how
many group I would have to have before we could see a statistically
significant difference, but I would assume at least 5 or 6 if not more.
>
|