[PSA] write the concentration on the vial. that is the whole post.
write the concentration on the vial. that is the whole post. Two minutes of reading now saves an argument later.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
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
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.
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.
Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
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.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially
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.
That is a relative risk reduction.
Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.
trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets
Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.
read the endpoint before you read the headline
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.