PT says 800 on the other thread so 800 plus or minus a few seems a good number
Printable View
With all due respect to everyone including Black Knat here is the second page disclaimer of the AHRQ DRAFT report with highlights in red.
This report is based on research conducted by an Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under
contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract
No. xxx-xxxx-xxxxx). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors,
who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the
views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official
position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and
clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well informed
decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to
be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning
the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical
reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available
resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice
guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage
policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such
derivative products may not be stated or implied.
This report may periodically be assessed for the urgency to update. If an assessment is done, the
resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the
Effective Health Care Program website at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title
of the report.
The cxBladder (detect) clinical trial O'Sullivan 2012 Test 52 was the only one used for cxBladder therefore there is insufficient strength of evidence.
Might suggest that the validity of two subsequent clinical trials from NZ DHBs which were in the latest release from PEB may go a long way to improving the situation if they are in time to be placed in the current review.
Didn't like reading the part below from the report.
http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/...aft-141110.pdf
Urinary biomarkers miss 23 to 42 percent of patients with
bladder cancer and are incorrectly positive in 11 to 28 percent of patients without bladder cancer,
which could result in delayed diagnosis or unnecessary cystoscopies and other diagnostic
procedures, but no study directly measured effects of inaccurate diagnosis on clinical outcomes
Before no one was doubting the product ,but were doubting the sales---Now the sales seem good ,but some are doubting the product---Sheeeesh! its not a simple world:scared:
I agree with Miner the pending three or four Cxbladder(detect) studies, and also the pending Cxbladder(triage) clinical trial results will both bolster the library, and without a doubt, further demonstrate that Cxbladder provides clinically better results than any of the other five competitive products within the report.
Still early days for a new product like Cxbladder, it can take a decade to build up many publications like Alere. But, at the end of the day, it's the clinical results and study findings that are important, not the number of studies conducted.
It’s good to see Pacific Edge conducting trials and studies within the target markets also, shouldn’t make a difference to clinicians, but it further builds contacts with local urologists and health organisation managers. All good proactive stuff.
as sales comming .., it is all on track.., no worries..start accumulating...
in couple years time.., it will look all good.., i see this stock such as like...xro and dil
the report to me indicates that the strength of evidence( ie, number of clinical trials conducted and validated) for nmp22 is higher because it is older and has been around a lot longer than cxbladder. If cxbladder had 5 trials conducted and validated its SOE would be much higher. Thats my take, and Ill stick with it in the meantime.
Cheers
Miner