Question

To test the effectiveness of a new drug (Phasomaxtrin) designed to treat Quarantinitis, researchers conducted a clinical trial. The subjects were 512 adult American volunteers with advanced Quarantinitis. Half were randomly assigned to take the drug and the other half were randomly assigned to take a placebo. Neither the subjects nor the doctors who evaluated them knew who was in which group. After three years, 32 percent of those who got Phasomaxtrin were no longer afraid to keep staying inside, compared with only 23 percent of those who got the placebo. (The difference is statistically significant.)

1. Determine if the data support or refute the hypothesis.
2. Provide an example of a follow-up study. Example: If a study looked at the relationship between exercising 3 times per week and mood, you could suggest a follow-up study that separates the study into groups of specific exercises (running, walking, weight lifting, etc)

Answer 1

The test here was to determine the effectiveness of a drug compared to placebo on patients of Quarantinitis.

The alternative hypothesis was: The drug is effective at reducing fear compared to placebo in Quarantinitis patients.

The null hypothesis is the negation of the alternative hypothesis. Hence the null hypothesis will be that the drug and placebo are equally effective.

a) The data, however, exhibits that the patients that were given the drug were less afraid of staying at home compared to the placebo group. Also, this difference is significant. Hence, the data here is supporting the alternate hypothesis.

b) The data is present only for a time period of three years. Further studies can be performed to monitor the effectiveness for variable time periods of say 3, 5, 7, and 9 years and then the patients that do not feel afraid of staying indoors can be quantified. This will allow to give a better picture of the drug in a temporal manner and also to check if there is any remittance after the drug dosage is stopped.