hazard ratio is the most under-discussed thing on this board
hazard ratio is the most under-discussed thing on this board — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong efficacy number and heavy discontinuation is telling you two things and people only quote one.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteria. Reading a weight number out of one is reading a secondary endpoint.
[deleted]
Right — trial participants get structured support. Comparing yourself to a trial mean is comparing across two different interventions.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
plateau_patrol is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.
a press release is not a publication
a press release is not a publication
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.
Do you have the publication or the press release?
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Same.
Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.
A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data.
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.
SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints
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.
a mean is not a promise
Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.
phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
- 1A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two…11 comments in this branch · started by u/whois_wanda