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 [Discussion] TRIUMPH is doing more work than we give it credit for — 56 comments in the full submission. View in context.
2k
c/trialwatch·submitted 1 year ago by u/paper_trail_paula

[Discussion] TRIUMPH is doing more work than we give it credit for

Discussionbranch of 7 comments

TRIUMPH is doing more work than we give it credit for. Making the case below, and I expect to lose some of it in the comments. Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point. The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me…

Read the full submission and all 56 comments →

This branch

7 comments, started 1 year ago
u/draw_up_dizzy321 points·1 year ago

Cosigning on discontinuation. It is a result about tolerability and it gets buried every time.

replysharereportpermalink
u/camila_vasquez225 points·1 year ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/yara_bakken148 points·1 year ago

The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rohan_cardoso101 points·1 year ago

SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight

replysharereportpermalink
u/paper_trail_paulaOPvetting0 points·1 year ago

Correcting myself upthread: I gave the completer figure and labelled it intention-to-treat.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rania_salinas139 points·1 year ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/karl_fischer_kev38 points·1 year ago

What was the discontinuation rate?

replysharereportpermalink

← 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

Janoshik Analytical

Independent HPLC and mass spec. The number you get is the number they found.

janoshik.comSponsored

GL Biochem (Shanghai)

Custom peptides and amino acids direct from the manufacturer since 1998. ISO 9001 / cGMP. Batch COA every order.

glbiochem.net
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 →