I'll preface this by saying that I'm not even remotely a medical researcher, or a statistician. I would also love for someone to correct me if I get something wrong here...
When I read this, I think the sample size (n=110) is too small for all the various claims they're correlating out of it. Yes, It's a large enough sample size for statistical significance, but I think there are too many variations involved to make any definitive conclusions. Specifically with the concomitant treatments.
They also did not collect their own control data, but pulled SOC data from elsewhere. I don't think that's bad, but their control group was only 12 patients, and they even state in the paper that it's not large enough for sufficient results.
I do think the results are encouraging from my armchair analysis, and I think it would be good to see the data from a larger study (and a far larger control group), but I think it's far too early to make any real conclusions from this.
Conditions included open-label drug use, without a placebo control or randomization. In lieu of a placebo control group, for comparison the control(s) consisted of published SOC patient results that were not administered the dual-histamine receptor blockade from the USA, United Kingdom, and China.
I think further placebo controlled double blind study is warranted before any conclusions can be drawn that this treatment is effective.
Respectfully, the AP article is not very focused. What was I supposed to get from it? That famotidine was a long shot and the clinical trial was bulldozed through? Cause in all honesty, I am OK with that.
7 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 29.6 ms ] threadWhen I read this, I think the sample size (n=110) is too small for all the various claims they're correlating out of it. Yes, It's a large enough sample size for statistical significance, but I think there are too many variations involved to make any definitive conclusions. Specifically with the concomitant treatments.
They also did not collect their own control data, but pulled SOC data from elsewhere. I don't think that's bad, but their control group was only 12 patients, and they even state in the paper that it's not large enough for sufficient results.
I do think the results are encouraging from my armchair analysis, and I think it would be good to see the data from a larger study (and a far larger control group), but I think it's far too early to make any real conclusions from this.
But in all seriousness, I wonder if the homogenous form Zyrtec is as effective as the chiral-ically singular Xyzal.
I think further placebo controlled double blind study is warranted before any conclusions can be drawn that this treatment is effective.
Tl;dr Pepcid is the new hydroquinone