[Discussion] can we stop arguing about TRIUMPH until somebody posts a number
Trying to get a straight answer on this: can we stop arguing about TRIUMPH until somebody posts a number. Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight. Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second…
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.