Points regarding the advantages of LaTex are very well taken. If I were fortunate enough to have complete ownership of the document (as might be the case with a DSMB report produced by the Biostat group), then LaTex would be a wonderful choice. Though I am not a LaTex user, I can easily imagine that the productivity gains could be considerable.
Unfortunately, in most cases the Biostatistics group is responsible for providing a relatively small piece of the overall document which is owned by another group that inevitably uses MS Office. --- On Wed, 2/17/10, Erik Iverson <er...@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote: > From: Erik Iverson <er...@ccbr.umn.edu> > Subject: Re: [R] Use of R in clinical trials > To: "Frank E Harrell Jr" <f.harr...@vanderbilt.edu> > Cc: "Cody Hamilton" <cody.sh...@yahoo.com>, r-help@r-project.org > Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 9:05 PM > Frank E Harrell Jr wrote: > > Cody, > > > > How amazing that SAS is still used to produce reports > that reviewers hate and that requires tedious low-level > programming. R + LaTeX has it all over that approach > IMHO. We have used that combination very successfully > for several data and safety monitoring reporting tasks for > clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. > > > > Frank > > I used to work for a research group that also used R + > LaTeX to produce DSMB reports for clinical trials. If > the DSMB members had only been exposed to SAS reports > before, you could not get them to stop praising the quality > of the R + LaTeX reports, even years into a trial. > > Erik > ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
