GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Readout] SELECT: MACE HR 0.80, and the absolute numbers people skip — 14 comments in the full submission. View in context.
95
c/trialwatch·submitted 4 days ago by u/heart_rate_bump

[Readout] SELECT: MACE HR 0.80, and the absolute numbers people skip

Readoutbranch of 10 comments

SELECT: MACE HR 0.80, and the absolute numbers people skip — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested. 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…

Read the full submission and all 14 comments →

This branch

10 comments, started 2 days ago
u/hub_opssite staff10 points·2 days ago

Is that intention-to-treat or completers?

replysharereportpermalink
u/curious_panel_only13 points·2 days ago

intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially

replysharereportpermalink
u/adaeze_cabrera7 points·2 days ago

That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.

replysharereportpermalink
u/pancreatitis_scare4 points·2 days ago

check who the comparator was before you compare anything

replysharereportpermalink
u/week_one_wanda6 points·2 days ago·edited

Absolute or relative risk reduction?

replysharereportpermalink
u/first_hundred15 points·2 days ago

How long was the randomised phase before any extension?

replysharereportpermalink
u/hazard_ratio_halstats5 points·1 days ago

Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.

replysharereportpermalink
u/camila_vasquez-27 points·2 days ago

That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rulebook_rachaelmod · c/meta1 point·2 days ago

That is a relative risk reduction.

Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (1) →

← back to the whole thread

About c/trialwatch

Clinical trial reading group. New readouts, protocol amendments, endpoint definitions, dropout handling, and the difference between a press release and a publication. Absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat are house dialect here.

34kmembers
95submissions
Nov 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/trialwatch
c/trialwatch rules
  1. Press-release-only posts must be flaired Press Release until a publication exists.
  2. Give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body.
  3. Relative risk reduction alone is not a result. Show the absolute numbers.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/trialwatch_theou/forest_plot_fionau/hazard_ratio_halu/renal_outcomes_r
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →