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?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
535
c/trialwatch·posted 1 year ago by u/sofia_wikstrom

SURPASS — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right

Discussion Receipts ×8

SURPASS — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.

Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.

Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.

Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.

I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.

4,712 up / 4,177 down53% upvoted8 commentsid yxu6ba17 Nov 2024

8 comments

6 in this archive, depth 3

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/rohan_cardoso81 points·1 year ago

Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong efficacy number and heavy discontinuation is telling you two things and people only quote one.

replysharereportpermalink
[deleted]29 points·1 year ago

[deleted]

replysharereportpermalink
u/hsa_math55 points·1 year ago

Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.

replysharereportpermalink
u/trialwatch_theoMOD36 points·1 year ago

Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.

replysharereportpermalink
u/heart_rate_bump10 points·1 year ago

Is that intention-to-treat or completers?

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (1) →
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

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.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 →