|
|
Post by castlerockchris on Jul 31, 2023 12:01:23 GMT -5
" 120 patients will be randomized in the study conducted in collaboration with the Jaeb Center for Health Research and 20 sites across the country" Is it typical to only have a few (6) patients per site? It seems very inefficient to have to train so many people on the protocol. Yes it does seem inefficient, but medical studies are not about efficiency in any way shape of form. 20 sites allows for the removal or societal impacts, or outlier events in any particular test center impacting or skewing the results in an unexplained manner. More sites equals less impact by regional culture, environmental impacts, etc. Plus if one or two sites have an outlier or even binary event that can be explained the data can be excluded or footnoted as to why it is outside the test norm, ultimately making the test more credible. By way of an example, if during the COVID vaccine trial if you were testing in only 10 locations and a sever storm wiped out power, and refrigeration in three of those test sites, meaning the test could not proceed or was delayed, then the entire trial would be at risk. Plus more locations provides a wider demographic and psychographic base, making the results more applicable to the norm. In short, more randomization of the test nation allows for more reliability of the results that can be achieved across the entire population, which equals lower margins of error and higher credibility. |
|
