SURPASS — 14 things I got wrong before I got it right
SURPASS — 14 things I got wrong before I got it right. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
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.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am 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.
Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteri
niels_norgaard is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.
Agreed.
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
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.
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.
Cosigning on discontinuation. It is a result about tolerability and it gets buried every time.
Cosigning on discontinuation.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
- 1Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and…6 comments in this branch · started by u/niels_norgaard