EMWA conference in Frankfurt

Last week I went to the EMWA conference in Frankfurt, which once again was very successful and a lot of fun. I was teaching two workshops this time, including a brand new one on statistical analysis of binary data. To my surprise, the workshop sold out very soon after conference registration opened. This is unusual for a new workshop (as workshops are not eligible for EMWA professional development credit the first time they are run) and, let's face it, statistical analysis of binary data doesn't exactly sound very sexy.

DIA clinical forum, day 2

We're now on our second day at the DIA clinical forum. I've been to quite a variety of talks: one session on clinical study reports, another on validation of computerised systems, and most recently on statistical analysis of bioequivalence trials, where there was much discussion of whether it's acceptable to widen the acceptance criteria for bioequivalence if drugs have highly variable C_max. It will be interesting to see what the new guideline on this says when it's published, supposedly later this year.

HIV vaccine results

Today's big health news story is a "breakthrough" in HIV vaccine research, as the results of a study done in Thailand are announced. At the end of a 3-year study, 74 of 8,198 subjects became infected with HIV in the placebo group compared with 51 of 8,197 in the vaccine group. That's a vaccine efficacy of about 31%, or if you prefer, a risk ratio of 0.69.

Bugs in showerheads

A schoolboy error in one of the health news stories from the BBC today provides further evidence for a theory I've recently been developing.

The headline reads Taking showers 'can make you ill'. Once you read more, however, you realise that the research on which it's based provides no evidence whatever that taking showers can make you ill. All it shows is that various unpleasant bugs, such as Mycobacterium avium, can lurk in shower heads. Given that most people shower every day and seldom develop mycobacterial infections, I suspect that any risk from such infected shower heads must be pretty low. For the journalist to write a headline like that is an egregious example of extrapolating beyond your data.

Conflicts of interest

We are no strangers to conflicts of interest in the world of medical writing. The best known case of this is when a pharmaceutical company has paid someone to write an article about one of their own drugs. The conflict of interest here is obvious. Because it is so obvious, however, journal editors are very well aware of the potential for bias in this situation, so such conflicts of interests are, in the main, transparent and well managed. That doesn't mean that some egregiously biased articles don't sometimes slip through the net, of course, but in my experience that doesn't happen often.

Oral cancer statistics

Today's news on the latest oral cancer statistics contains some schoolboy errors in presenting statistical results, and are a great example of how not to present statistics in the popular media.

Let's take the title of the article to start with:  "Drink blamed for oral cancer rise". Well, it's true that oral cancer is more common now than it was in previous decades. It's also true that we drink more now than in previous decades. And it's true that alcohol consumption is a risk factor for oral cancer. So it seems logical to assume that drink must be responsible, doesn't it?