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 hazard ratio is the most under-discussed thing on this board — 60 comments in the full submission. View in context.
6.4k
c/trialwatch·submitted 1 year ago by u/nils_tulloch

hazard ratio is the most under-discussed thing on this board

Trial Databranch of 11 comments

hazard ratio is the most under-discussed thing on this board — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested. Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit. Spent an evening with the appendix tables and…

Read the full submission and all 60 comments →

This branch

11 comments, started 1 year ago
u/whois_wanda232 points·1 year ago

A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nils_tullochOP98 points·1 year ago

Do you have the publication or the press release?

replysharereportpermalink
u/alcohol_aversion50 points·1 year ago

Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yannick_salinas36 points·1 year ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/heart_rate_bump0 points·1 year ago

Same.

Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.

replysharereportpermalink
u/sofia_wikstrom110 points·1 year ago·edited

A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data.

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/first_hundred58 points·1 year ago·edited

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/curious_panel_only55 points·1 year ago

Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.

replysharereportpermalink
u/careful_gradient_again17 points·1 year ago

the appendix is where the interesting tables live

replysharereportpermalink
u/milan_mensah20 points·1 year ago

the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline

replysharereportpermalink
u/sanne_laurent36 points·1 year ago

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

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

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
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.
Moderators
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.