[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: clinical trials

From   "E. Paul Wileyto" <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: clinical trials
Date   Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:10:45 -0500

We're all preaching to the choir here. Most of us on this list-serve like Stata better than SAS. Do we need to recount the reasons?

1) Better teaching tool than SAS. (and it's making inroads to clinical trials because the epi people like it)
2) Smaller than SAS
3) You can actually reach their Tech Support people.
4) Not predatory in their business practices
5) Interactive in use (No typing a command longer than your dissertation)
6) Really good set of general tools for repeated measures (that can be applied to most procedures)

And so on...


Phil Schumm wrote:

On Jan 3, 2008, at 8:32 AM, David Airey wrote:
Does anyone on the list use Stata for clinical trials analysis? I get the impression companies that specialize in this field use SAS almost exclusively. From what I know of Stata's feature set, I don't think this is because Stata cannot be use to perform analysis of clinical trials data. SAS certainly pushes this area of use with SAS, and they have several SAS published how-to texts.

On Jan 3, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Gabi Huiber wrote:
Stata's best chance at getting into clinical trials is to win over one-drug startups and small contractors, I think. But for that Stata people must be visible at such industry venues as the ISPOR ( meetings.

Another area where there can be movement is in the collaborations between industry (drug companies and CROs) and academia, which are, I believe, becoming more common as both try to make maximum use of their resources. For example, at U of C, our medical center has been converted largely to Stata, thanks to the help of our faculty teaching courses with it and our biostatistics laboratory using it and/or recommending it for a good share of its collaborative work. As a result, when someone here collaborates with a company, we address this in the workflow we agree upon, and both sides learn from each other.

<rant>IMHO, vendor lock-in reduces uncertainty for the pointy heads, but is bad regardless of which vendor you're talking about. Stata has made inroads not because of aggressive marketing or vendor lock-in, but because once someone really learns what can be done with it (and how dependable and insanely well-supported it is), the choice usually becomes a no-brainer. And, don't forget, those who are in the best position to appreciate it are the ones who are most familiar with the limitations of other packages.</rant>

-- Phil

* For searches and help try:

E. Paul Wileyto, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biostatistics
Tobacco Use Research Center
School of Medicine, U. of Pennsylvania
3535 Market Street, Suite 4100
Philadelphia, PA 19104-3309

Fax: 215-746-7140
[email protected]
* For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index