[Discussion] the endpoint advice in here is 3 years out of date
the endpoint advice in here is 3 years out of date.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.…
Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.
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.
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.
discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote
Absolute or relative risk reduction?
Is that intention-to-treat or completers?
[deleted]
Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.