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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Could this be a case of superficial (cm^2) vs. in-depth (cm^3) analysis?
<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