In addition, a strong security profile for the product was observed. The results of this trial provide data which will allow the business to raised refine the protocol criteria to capture a more ‘enriched’ patient people and target site selection. ‘Based on the outcomes of our previously announced positive interim evaluation, this outcome was unforeseen,’ said Dr. Andrew Finn, Executive Vice President of Product Development. ‘The interim evaluation data showed a difference compared to placebo of -0.94 with a typical deviation of 2.2 that was close to our research assumption of -1.0 and 1.8, respectively, and incredibly like the prior Phase 2 research conducted by our licensor Arcion.’ Related StoriesSpotting the symptoms of advanced prostate tumor: an interview with Brian TomlinsonAddressing standard of living needs in prostate tumor: an interview with Professor Louis DenisCombatting viral and bacterial lung infections with volatile anesthetics: an interview with Dr ChakravarthyDr.The reviews of researchers in peer-reviewed medical journals, actually, were very often even more favorable to the drug or intervention becoming examined than the reports on the government website – – ClinicalTrials.gov – – which requires data for specific types, says the university evaluation. ‘Serious adverse events’ overlooked of journal reviews According to a news release of the results: One of the most significant discrepancies: Of the 84 clinical trials the researchers looked at where a significant adverse event was reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 33 of those trials reported fewer adverse events in the medical journals than that they had reported to the government website. In 16 of these full cases, no adverse events were reported in the journals. OHSU experts said their evaluation demonstrated the ongoing problem with inaccurate and occasionally biased reporting in medical journals.