4.6 Review

Statistical evaluation and experimental design of a psoriasis xenograft transplantation model treated with cyclosporin A

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 441-444

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2011.01251.x

关键词

ANOVA; psoriasis; study power; xenograft mouse model

资金

  1. Aage Bangs Foundation
  2. Danish Psoriasis Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psoriasis xenograft transplantation models where human skin is transplanted onto immune-deficient mice are generally accepted in psoriasis research. Over the last decade, they have been widely employed to screen for new therapeutics with a potential anti-psoriatic effect. However, experimental designs differ in several parameters. Especially, the number of donors and grafts per experimental design varies greatly; numbers that are directly related to the probability of detecting statistically significant drug effects. In this study, we performed a statistical evaluation of the effect of cyclosporine A, a recognized anti-psoriatic drug, to generate a statistical model employable to simulate different scenarios of experimental designs and to calculate the associated statistical study power, defined as the probability of detecting a statistically significant anti-psoriatic drug treatment effect. Results showed that to achieve a study power of 0.8, at least 20 grafts per treatment group and a minimum of five donors should be included in the chosen experimental setting. To our knowledge, this is the first time that study power calculations have been performed to evaluate treatment effects in a psoriasis xenograft transplantation model. This study was based on a defined experimental protocol, thus other parameters such as drug potency, treatment protocol, mouse strain and graft size should, also, be taken into account when designing an experiment. We propose that the results obtained in this study may lend a more quantitative support to the validity of results obtained when exploring new potential anti-psoriatic drug effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据