does SELECT actually matter or is it forum lore at this point
Asking properly rather than in a comment on somebody else’s thread: does SELECT actually matter or is it forum lore at this point.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
Ask me anything specific. Anything general I will probably get wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
On means, which this board treats as targets and which are nothing of the sort.
A reported mean body weight change is the centre of a distribution that in these trials is very wide. Substantial numbers of participants did much better, and substantial numbers did considerably worse while remaining on the drug and in the analysis.
Quoting the mean as an expectation therefore misleads in both directions: it makes ordinary results look like failures and it makes exceptional results look normal. If a paper publishes the distribution — and several do, in the appendix — look at that instead. It is far more informative than the number in the abstract.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
Right — trial participants get structured support. Comparing yourself to a trial mean is comparing across two different interventions.
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.
Is that intention-to-treat or completers?
Left up and flaired Trial Data. The publication is linked rather than the coverage, which is what we ask for.
Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.
Left up and flaired Trial Data.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.
Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart.
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.
read the endpoint before you read the headline
- 1Is that intention-to-treat or completers?7 comments in this branch · started by u/emil_agyeman
- 2Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail…6 comments in this branch · started by u/formulary_fighter