[Discussion] can we stop arguing about TRIUMPH until somebody posts a number
Trying to get a straight answer on this: can we stop arguing about TRIUMPH until somebody posts a number.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
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.
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
[deleted]
check who the comparator was before you compare anything
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
a press release is not a publication
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
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.
This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
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.
What was the discontinuation rate?
Right — trial participants get structured support. Comparing yourself to a trial mean is comparing across two different interventions.
phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
read the endpoint before you read the headline
registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents
- 1Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A…8 comments in this branch · started by u/britta_boateng
- 2a press release is not a publication7 comments in this branch · started by u/rina_bergstrom