SURPASS — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right
SURPASS — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right, which sounds obvious until you try to state the evidence for it.
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.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
Careful with that mean.
nhs_waitlist_n is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
[deleted]
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
Agreed on comparators. "Superior" means nothing until you know superior to what and at what dose.
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged.
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. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.
- 1Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two…9 comments in this branch · started by u/renal_outcomes_r