Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:30:09 -0400
Reply-To:     HERMANS1 <HERMANS1@WESTAT.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         HERMANS1 <HERMANS1@WESTAT.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bone Mineral Density
Comments: To: "Robert M. Hamer" <hamer@RCI.RUTGERS.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Could this be a case of superficial (cm^2) vs. in-depth (cm^3) analysis?
Sig
<........
<1.  Email from a local geriatric internist said, effectively,
<"The measurement is gm/cm^2, that's it, that's what is used,
<and I don't know what it means, and why are you asking questions
<like this anyway."

<2.  A statistician at the FDA looked at a document from
<the team leader (MD) of an NDA involving BMD, and that
<document used gm/cm^2.

<3.  He called one of the physicians involved in an NDA
<involving BMD, who said, effectively, that both terms
<are used, that they are not the same thing, that he
<couldn't explain what they were, and that even when
<the same term was used in different studies, it might
<have been measured idiosyncratically, and thus wouldn't
<be comparable.