hazard ratio is the most under-discussed thing on this board
hazard ratio is the most under-discussed thing on this board. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
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.
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
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed.
Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
- 1Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section,…6 comments in this branch · started by u/rohan_cardoso