« Small numbers and scams | Main | The old is the new new thing »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Please clarify your last sentence. It would seem that GSK is pretty hosed.


Jay: GSK's spokesman is "worried" that the new studies do not have the same credibility as their own clinical trials. I'm sure he/she is very worried about the prospect of Avandia! Sorry - the tongue in cheek doesn't translate well on line.


You should probably qualify your statement about sample sizes; a meta-analysis across studies involving 200k people total is not the same as one study of 200k people (I guess in theory they could be equivalent, if each study was conducted exactly the same - but that's not really a "meta-analysis").

The takeaway is that large sample sizes doesn't (always) trump design considerations.


J: agree that larger sample size is not always better. However, in this case, I believe that the spokesman is setting up a straw man. There are practical limitations to how large the sample size could be for a clinical trial. If multiple trials are available, a meta-analysis can help pool the information. It's by no means foolproof but I'd believe the pooled analysis of 56 trials more than the one trial GSK deems to be "well-designed".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Get new posts by email:
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR, Wired.

See my Youtube and Flickr.


  • only in Big Data
Numbers Rule Your World:
Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

Next Events

Jan: 10 NYPL Data Science Careers Talk, New York, NY

Past Events

Aug: 15 NYPL Analytics Resume Review Workshop, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

See more here

Principal Analytics Prep

Link to Principal Analytics Prep