reading SURMOUNT threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
reading SURMOUNT threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments. Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something. Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup…
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
a mean is not a promise
a mean is not a promise
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?