Obviously, the subgroups are less precise because of the smaller numbers, but the efficacy doesn't seem to be impacted very much by race in this trial
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If we are going to get into subgroup analysis, I wonder how they classified the 25% of participants that were recruited outside of the US, since this racial classification is clearly a US-based one.
-
Specifically, for ethnicity, I wonder if what looks like a over-representation of Latinos (25%, vs ~17% in the US), is just because 21% of the trial comes from Argentina and Brazil.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
These CIs are insanely wide. Can we say… much of anything? I’m not sure I look at this and could confidently say they show no difference.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The racial differentiation begs the question of the definition of a racial group. Just to take one, Asian, does that include Indian Asian? South Pacific islanders? Guessing that racial identification is self identified - with all the variation that brings.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.