I get the same impression. I think old FDA rules that required
supporting data to be submitted in the .xpt format helped SAS's
dominance. As of last year, the FDA is accepting data in the XML
format, using a schema developed by an industry consortium called
CDISC. Even so, there is some inertia. Where I live, in the Triangle
area of North Carolina, clinical trials are a major industry. This is
also the home of the SAS Institute. Local firms hedge: they have staff
that contribute work toward CDISC efforts to open the industry to
other platforms, while at the same time their recruiters insist on
hiring only SAS programmers. That makes sense if you want to make sure
that everybody can read everybody else's code. It makes operating
procedures easier to standardize, and that helps productivity and
quality assurance especially in big firms, like Quintiles. Stata's
best chance at getting into clinical trials is to win over one-drug
startups and small contractors, I think. But for that Stata people
must be visible at such industry venues as the ISPOR (ispor.org)
meetings.
Gabi
On Jan 3, 2008 9:32 AM, David Airey <[email protected]> wrote:
> .
>
> Does anyone on the list use Stata for clinical trials analysis? I get
> the impression companies that specialize in this field use SAS almost
> exclusively. From what I know of Stata's feature set, I don't think
> this is because Stata cannot be use to perform analysis of clinical
> trials data. SAS certainly pushes this area of use with SAS, and they
> have several SAS published how-to texts.
>
> -Dave
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
