David James Foundation Blog Rave Clinical Trials To Assist With Health Research In 2021

Rave Clinical Trials To Assist With Health Research In 2021

Overall, there are many different kinds of ways through which rave clinical trials are helping to assist with health research in 2021. Over this period of time there have been many different kinds of benefits which have helped to assist with clinical trials being run effectively and helping to improve peoples health and wellbeing overall.

What Is Rave Clinical Trial Software

Rave clinical trial software is a type of software which is used within clinical trials. This kind of software is a cloud based data management system which is normally used to handle and manage data through a range of different settings and formats.

This kind of data is being increasingly sought after by a wide range of companies and organisations thanks to the unique properties that it holds. Rave software allows for the transfer and management  of clinical trials data to be complete quickly and with  minimal input from clinical trials organisations.

This allows for a lot faster completion of key clinical trials. A problem that many clinical trials companies have had in the past has been the fact that these companies have had to invest additional time and labour into these trials. This had led to far increased costs the trials have also taken longer to complete.

How Is This Software Being Incorporated Into Clinical Trials?

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has revealed that participants in a Rave clinical trial were found to have a significantly lower rate of mortality compared to those in a control group. The researchers identified three main factors for this result. First, the investigators measured vital signs in a vast majority of the Rave participants and then adjusted their statistical analysis to take out the effects of baseline health. Second, they excluded any patient who did not report a significant improvement in vital status from the baseline questionnaire and thirdly they removed participants whose baseline readings fell outside the range that was statistically significant at the un-adjustment stage.

While this was a well-conducted study with adequate statistical analysis, the actual cause of the favourable outcome may not be entirely attributable to these variables. One of the vital statistics parameters used to analyse Rave data was flow cytometry data. Despite the statistical adjustments to remove the pre-cancer phase from the baseline questionnaire, flow cytometry data was still significant when the results from the analysis portal were analysed using un-adjustable parameters. This suggests that the change in the screening procedure may actually have altered the profile of patients with cancer.

Crucial Findings And Outcomes From These Trials

It is important to note that flow cytometry does not assess survival. Rather, it assesses tumour burden which is determined from the tumour volume at the time of the primary visit and/or the end point of the treatment period. In a Rave clinical trial, patients that were assigned to the maintenance phase had an elevated tumour burden at the primary visit and had a significantly higher frequency of new tumours at the end of the trial than patients assigned to the therapy arm. Therefore, although flow cytometry can provide suggestive evidence of survival benefit, it cannot conclusively establish that the treatment is effective in improving survival.

Other parameters associated with the analysis of Rave data included the percentage of total cell populations detected by the single photon/ionizing energy device, the percentage of cancer cells detected by the multiphoton/x-ray energy device, the total number of cancer cell detected by both devices, and the percentage of cancer cells detected after radiation treatment.

The majority of investigators used q-values and significance testing for detecting the clinical trials with high quality data. Although the overall quality of the analysis was generally good, there was a lot of incompleteness among the investigators with large numbers of patients. Also, the panel that observed in the clinical trials did not properly account for the multiple samples and the multiple treatment periods.