GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of does SELECT actually matter or is it forum lore at this point — 40 comments in the full submission. View in context.
4.6k
c/trialwatch·submitted 1 year ago by u/receptor_bias_rick

does SELECT actually matter or is it forum lore at this point

Trial Databranch of 9 comments

Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: does SELECT actually matter or is it forum lore at this point. Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight. On means, which this board treats as targets and which are…

Read the full submission and all 40 comments →

This branch

9 comments, started 1 year ago
u/yara_mensah126 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yusuf_achebe82 points·1 year ago·edited

What did the confidence interval look like?

replysharereportpermalink
u/rulebook_rachaelmod · c/meta104 points·1 year ago

The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint with the reported one is a two-minute check and it is how outcome switching gets caught.

replysharereportpermalink
u/receptor_bias_rickOP41 points·1 year ago

Do you have the publication or the press release?

replysharereportpermalink
u/curious_panel_only20 points·1 year ago

Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.

replysharereportpermalink
u/customs_seizure_sid52 points·1 year ago

Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards.

Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.

replysharereportpermalink
u/foam_head_fred66 points·1 year ago

What was the discontinuation rate?

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_ferreira37 points·1 year ago

What was the discontinuation rate?

Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (1) →

← back to the whole thread

About c/trialwatch

Clinical trial reading group. New readouts, protocol amendments, endpoint definitions, dropout handling, and the difference between a press release and a publication. Absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat are house dialect here.

34kmembers
95submissions
Nov 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
c/trialwatch rules
  1. Press-release-only posts must be flaired Press Release until a publication exists.
  2. Give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body.
  3. Relative risk reduction alone is not a result. Show the absolute numbers.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Moderators
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.