intent-to-treat vs per-protocol explains half the arguments on this site
intent-to-treat vs per-protocol explains half the arguments on this site. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this. 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…
Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.
This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.
Which trial, and which arm?
FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes
Cosigning on discontinuation. It is a result about tolerability and it gets buried every time.
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?