Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Inferring cause and effect from trial results
This article was originally published in Clinica
Executive Summary
The vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific papers reporting the results of clinical trials are models of lucidity. The aims and methods – and crucially, the results – are set down clearly, in such a way as to minimise the reader's chance of drawing specious conclusions.
You may also be interested in...
Normality Reasserts Itself For Biotech IPOs
The highs of the COVID-19 era, and the lows that supplanted it, are beginning to fade.
MRM Health Pulls A Pouchitis Hit Out Of The Bag
The mid-stage success is encouraging, but taking on Takeda won’t be easy.
Novartis Draws Out Its APPLAUSE
Another data drop from Fabhalta’s IgAN trial looks encouraging, despite a missing abstract.