[Discussion] the endpoint advice in here is 3 years out of date
the endpoint advice in here is 3 years out of date. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down. 3 years. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour. Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.…
phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
Right — trial participants get structured support. Comparing yourself to a trial mean is comparing across two different interventions.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Agreed on comparators. "Superior" means nothing until you know superior to what and at what dose.
STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.