[PSA] write the concentration on the vial. that is the whole post.
The one-line version is the title: write the concentration on the vial. that is the whole post. The rest is why.
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.
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
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.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
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.
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.