SURPASS — 12 things I got wrong before I got it right
SURPASS — 12 things I got wrong before I got it right — 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.
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
Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.
Press-release posts get their own flair here.
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
Why comparing across trials almost never works, with the specific failure modes.
Different populations: an obesity programme and a diabetes programme enrol different people with different baseline characteristics. Different endpoints: body weight change, glycaemic control and cardiovascular events are not convertible. Different durations: 68 weeks and 72 weeks are not the same, and the curves have not flattened by either.
Different analysis populations: one paper reports intention-to-treat, another emphasises completers. Different support: some trial designs include structured lifestyle contact that no member of this board receives.
Stack those and the "X beats Y" tables that circulate here are comparing five things at once and attributing the difference to the molecule.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
Agreed on comparators. "Superior" means nothing until you know superior to what and at what dose.
What did the confidence interval look like?
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
yusuf_achebe is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.