Our live Investing Matters Podcast Special which took place at the Master Investor Show discussing 'How undervalued is the UK stock market?', has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
My worry about peer review and it is only a small worry.
1.Confidence intervals are huge. These give a better idea of where the "true" difference may lie
2. Small studies throw up erroneous statistical significant results - opposite of what I thought
On the flip side
No real safety signal
Results consistent with hypothesis and each other
Other data to be included.
Authors well respected
Conclusion will be do a phase III but I suspect Recovery arm already written
Thank You everyone for taking the time to reply. Helps me, and hopefully others, get a better understanding.
As a reviewer, one is normally given around a month to review a paper, before they start to chase you up. It's quite a lengthy business - you have to re-work the data, to ensure that the results are stated correctly, check all the individual references, given in the bibliography, and then critique the article. The more important the paper, the more intensively one tends to work on it. Although, as a reviewer you are usually anonymous, your own reputation is nevertheless a bit on the line, & the reviews are later read as thoroughly as the paper itself. The job is given to people who are experts in the particular field, who, by definition, already have pretty busy professional lives, & are possibly involved in trials of their own. So time has to be found. Usually at a weekend. My guess is that the authors have by now agreed on a draft, & sent it off to a journal. Since this is a pretty hot topic, maybe 1-2 wks to review, & then the authors have a choice to include the reviewers' points, or justify ignoring them, before a final draft is sent off. This then goes for a final quick review, before (hopefully) acceptance & publication. I used to reckon about 6 months to get a paper into print - but, given the importance & topicality here, we could be looking at around 3 weeks left in the process.
Sorry Carpman, my mistake. I thought you had fixed a 4-week date to it in you last post, which was what prompted my question.
I don't think any of us can put a timeline on it because the situation is so unusual - all we know is it's very, very urgent.
I hope it isn't our friend Steve Goodacre. Or that he's at least cheered up a bit since manic monday.
isnt the only point of a peer review to go to publication? And what would be the point of publication at the moment when more data is about to appear per se? Dont get the obsession with peer review... yes, the lancet or Jama etc wont publish without probably but why would synairgen want to spend their time currently, this week, worrying about publication of a trial when they have already moved on from that. Dont get it. we all know what it will say anyway... " small sample size; looks good, would have been better to control for diabetes, progress onwards to bigger sample". There. I've written one.
I wouldn’t fix a date to it remember this is covid stuff carnt put a date on anything but as mr big said A peer review is just a review and I honestly don’t think it will make much difference to the Sp. Sng are very good with years of experience in trials and peer reviews so I would guess the pre results have a percentage downside built in to them. I honestly think we will get an approval before peer view readings.
Thanks Carpman, that's great news. So we should get the RNS on the 17th. Only a week to go and that will fly by. How do you think they have managed to speed the procedure up?
JSP - mentioned many times here - most folk (including yours truly) think peer review completely irrelevant to SP.
JSP123 - SNG where forced to release early results due to market rules.
In reality they have probably done further analysis on the data before making it available for Peer review.
Who knows when they actually released the data sets to the community.
I wouldn’t be concerned one does not bang on about how getting the right data is critical and then go on to release poor data.
I trust that the preliminary results will stack up they might even be improved once full analysis has happened.
Hi
I have been informed peer reviews can take months to complete But in this case of covid expect a time frame of around 4 weeks.
They don't have to repeat it, they just have to analyse all of the data and look for inconsistencies. If they find none we head north! If they find a lot of inconsistencies then we head south in terms of share price. They will likely find some issues but if the overall effect of the drug is clear and is efficacious then boom!
Afternoon all. I have no scientific knowledge and I know many on here do so thought I would ask. How long would a peer review generally take?. On Monday we are 3 weeks since "that" RNS. Is a peer review as straight forward as an independent body looking SNGs data on the 109 patients and confirming (or not) that they agree with the findings or do they find their own subjects and re run the tests on other individuals. I understand that the results need to be confirmed it just seems that 3 weeks seems a long time to look over 109 results when there is a bit of a panic on. I am however perhaps looking at it to simplistically?? Anyone with experience in doing a peer review?