[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.159.197.114. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Correspondence
January 2002

AREDS Investigators Distort Findings

Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(1):100-101. doi:

In reply

We thank Dr Seigel for his interest in AREDS Report No. 8 but disagree that the trial failed to demonstrate efficacy in reducing progression to advanced AMD.1

Dr Seigel appears to base his conclusion on 2 assertions. The first is that there is no statistically significant effect of treatment in the total group studied and the second, which follows from the first, is that in the absence of an overall statistical effect of treatment, we should be conservative in interpreting subgroup results. Subgroup analyses of nonprespecified groups should be cautiously interpreted. However, we are looking at prespecified groups of participants, and we believe we have adequate evidence that the results are statistically significant.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×