5.7k
what would you tell week-1 you about SURMOUNT
Right, the SURMOUNT question again, but with numbers this time. I have 19 data points over 32 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance,…
u/rulebook_rachael
Wrote most of the community rules you are about to break. Sorry in advance.
moderator · mod · c/meta · joined 11 Oct 2023
9,065post karma
4,852comment karma
4submissions
52comments
Overview — page 2 of 3
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about wiki until somebody posts a number in c/meta · 22 points · 4 months ago
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
comment on genuine question about cloned site that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/scamalerts · 5 points · 4 months ago
Which order and did you have any communication from WWB?
comment on three years of rules threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/meta · 42 points · 5 months ago
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
comment on the hazard ratio thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down in c/trialwatch · 89 points · 6 months ago
dropout handling matters, especially on GI-heavy populations
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 39 weeks to accept.
comment on genuine question about SELECT that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/trialwatch · 13 points · 6 months ago
the relative risk reduction in headlines is not the whole story
comment on small win: PDF metadata stopped being a problem at week 40 in c/scamalerts · 48 points · 9 months ago
Yeah, the batch number across three vendors is a real signal.
comment on [Question] Ireland — has anyone got a straight answer on rules in c/meta · 305 points · 10 months ago
Did anything else change in the same window?
comment on [Question] Ireland — has anyone got a straight answer on rules in c/meta · 55 points · 10 months ago
the evidence standards are rules
comment on small win: TRIUMPH stopped being a problem at week 45 in c/trialwatch · 8 points · 1 year ago
Small correction: the trial was 4 weeks, not 31. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
144
SURMOUNT: what the trials say vs what this community says
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud. The advice on SURMOUNT in this community changed substantially around the start of last…
comment on 18 months in and hazard ratio is still the thing I get wrong in c/trialwatch · 84 points · 1 year ago
This is correct. Discontinuation arms show the regain reality.
comment on tried SURPASS for 11 weeks. here is what happened. in c/trialwatch · 104 points · 1 year ago
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
comment on what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio in c/trialwatch · 0 points · 1 year ago
Yeah, absolute numbers matter more than the press release.
comment on what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio in c/trialwatch · 30 points · 1 year ago
SELECT reported a TRIUMPH hazard ratio but the absolute event rate is what changes clinical practice.
comment on what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio in c/trialwatch · 28 points · 1 year ago
the discontinuation arms are the interesting part, not the SURPASS endpoints
1.3k
what would you tell week-1 you about hazard ratio
Right, the TRIUMPH question again, but with numbers this time. I have 6 data points over 34 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance,…
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify ranking in c/meta · 1 points · 1 year ago
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
comment on SELECT — 9 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/trialwatch · 16 points · 1 year ago
the 16 week readout is different from the 5 week readout
comment on [Discussion] the moderation advice in here is 9 years out of date in c/meta · 1 points · 1 year ago
Did anything else change in the same window?