how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURPASS threads
how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURPASS threads. I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint with the reported one is a two-minute check and it is how outcome switching gets caught.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.
Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.