title: Defending submission-year analyses of new drug approvals.
abstract: In response to the critique of Mary Olsen, Daniel Carpenter, on behalf of his co-authors, addresses the issue of analysis based on the year a new drug is submitted for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, not the year it is approved. Both substantive knowledge of the FDA drug review process and sound social science theory favor submission-year averaging. The history and bureaucratic mechanics of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Review (CDER) conform to the author's assumption. The statistical theory of optimal experimentation also points to the beginning of review as a locus for effects upon decisions.
authors.forename: Daniel P
authors.initials: DP
authors.lastname: Carpenter
mesh_terms: D017277:Drug Approval; D014481:United States; D014486:United States Food and Drug Administration