how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from TRIUMPH threads
how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from TRIUMPH threads. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months. Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about. Quoted a figure here…
Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.
Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards.
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards.
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
Do you have the publication or the press release?