Study Group: Emergency Medicine Physicians (US)(?)

Calling a 0.89% improvement "significant" just seems to me to show the weakness of this current trial.  Anyone can use statistics to prove just about anything.  Using verbal manipulation to puff up a study's result is unfair, unreliable and just plain sad.

When the new administration come in, medicine and big pharma are both going to be hit hard.  Industry sponsored research is going to be examined with a fine tooth comb.  All we need is another scandal.  It's getting harder and harder to trust industry sponsored research, with news coming...

Percutaneous coronary interventions are standard therapy for both acute MI patients as well as unstable coronary syndromes, and are commonly utilized as preventive therapy in some patients. The practice of thrombectomy prior to stenting in these patients is simple and fairly risk-free, but...

Direct comparisons between potential competing agents often do not exist Initial FDA approval is usually based on comparisons to placebo A new approval does necessarily mean that the new agent is better than existing ones, although this is implied by industry Industry bears all the costs of efficacy...

To be successful enrollment will have to be done in a mildly involuntary mannner. ie "You will be enrolled but can opt out by doing xyz." The ultimate test of such plans will be the willing acceptance by patients of disease management programs. Occasional inducements such as discounts...