 |
 |
As I understand it, the placebo, 300mg, and 600mg groups were basically the same. All of the groups were very small and the differences between these three groups was not statistically significant. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the 1200mg group and the other three groups. Perhaps your husband can check out the abstract for the actual article at http://archneur.ama-assn.org/issues/current/abs/noc20145.html. In other words, this study found no difference between taking no CoQ10, 300mg or 600mg. A difference only appears to begin at the 1200mg level. So, I would question the wisdom of people who go and take 100mg or 200mg of CoQ10 if they're basing that on this study since this study doesn't seem to support that approach. I think they're just wasting their money. The Vitaline wafers used in the study were specially formulated for the study and included Vitamin E which seems to promote the absorption of CoQ10. My understanding is that the wafers that Vitaline is currently making available for sale do -not-include the Vitamin E but that they have plans to do so in the future. Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ann Gibbons > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:51 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: CoQ10 Study Results > > > The following is a question I submitted to Ask the Doctor, > and Dr. Lieberman's reply. > > question > > Dr. Lieberman: The final results of the study -- Placebo > +11.99; 300mg +8.81; 600mg +10.82; 1200mg +6.69 are somewhat > confusing to me. It would appear that the 600mg group > progressed almost as much as the placebo group, and that the > 300mg group did better than the 600mg group. Although the > 1200mg group progressed the least, and therefore had the best > outcome, the trend toward that result is statistically > unusual. Can you comment? > > answer > > the comparison among the three groups involves a statistical > method that compares the percent change from group to group > using the number in each group and the probability the result > could have been obtained by chance alone i am not a > statistician and it is not a method with which I am well > versed although the differences between 600 mg and 1200 mg > do not seem great or profound, statistically they are the > results with 1200 mg per day were not statistically > significant to be so they would have to have a 95% > probability they did not occur by chance alone they have a > 92% probability they show a trend abe lieberman > > > I don't think Dr. Lieberman answered my question, which is > that the increases in dosage do not show a positive trend. It > is true that the 1200mg group progressed the least. But it > looks like the 300mg group did better than the 600mg group. > It looks like the 600mg group did almost as badly as the > placebo group. Something is wrong here. The study should > typically show a positive trend from placebo to 1200mg. I am > not a statistician, but my husband who has always worked with > statistics also questions this. Can we talk about this? > > > Ann Gibbons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn