Sat-16-04-2016, 11:56 AM
I read it too and drew the same conclusions as you Jim. However I am concerned that the study did not have a fixed baseline as such but took the baseline for each patient when they first presented. So - I think that means each individual had their own baseline? How does that work? Surely the measurements should be taken against a fixed or even zero baseline?
Mention of the "revised Steinbrocker method" threw me too - I'm going to have to research that as I've no idea what it means.
The conclusion..... A more accurate prognosis is now possible for some?
Hmm, was it really worth it?
Anyway - I've probably read it incorrectly, I'm new at this game and very inexperienced.
This study is probably far more important than I have been able to deduce.
Cheers
Kit
Mention of the "revised Steinbrocker method" threw me too - I'm going to have to research that as I've no idea what it means.
The conclusion..... A more accurate prognosis is now possible for some?
Hmm, was it really worth it?
Anyway - I've probably read it incorrectly, I'm new at this game and very inexperienced.
This study is probably far more important than I have been able to deduce.
Cheers
Kit