I read through the article about the Fluridil study and was a bit confused by some of the data. I was hoping someone could clear things up for me .
(See "Dermatol Surg. 2002 Aug;28(8):678-85, “Fluridil, a rationally designed topical agent for androgenetic alopecia: first clinical experience.” PDF is available here: http://www.hairsite2.com/flu.pdf)
It is mostly interesting to look at the figures from baseline to 3 months. After 3 months, the placebo group was also given Fluridil, because the researchers thought that the evidence for its efficiency was so obvious. I’m not sure I share their point of view…
My questions are:
Is the average increase in anagen hair count percentages in the placebo group 7.12% after 3 months? (An increase from 70.13% to 77.25%)
Is the average increase in anagen hair count percentages in the Fluridil group 9.41% after 3 months? (An increase from 75.68% to 85.09%)
Consequently, is the difference in average anagen hair counts between Fluridil and placebo only 2.29% after 3 months? (9.41% vs 7.12%)
One of the things that made me curious is the statement that there is no statistical difference between the placebo group and the Fluridil group at baseline. Unless I am mistaken the difference is 5.55% in mean anagen hair count percentages (70.13% vs 75.68%). Also the statement that “after 3 months, the average anagen percentage did not change in placebo subjects” seems incorrect. What am I missing?