I've seen discussion on this thread about the bias of Big Pharma. It exists, but is significantly greater for studies about primary CVD than secondary CVD.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....v/pubmed/23861972
![]() I've seen discussion on this thread about the bias of Big Pharma. It exists, but is significantly greater for studies about primary CVD than secondary CVD.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....v/pubmed/23861972 |
|
![]() Both groups -- primary and secondary CV prevention -- had 0% negative outcomes reported on sponsored studies. When one side of a ratio is zero you can't really say this one is zero-er than that one.
--
Drew |
|
![]() |