why does nobody talk about SELECT
why does nobody talk about SELECT. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
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.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
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.
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Is that intention-to-treat or completers?
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.
Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.
Cosigning on discontinuation. It is a result about tolerability and it gets buried every time.
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.