reading SURMOUNT threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
reading SURMOUNT threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board.
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint with the reported one is a two-minute check and it is how outcome switching gets caught.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote
FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes
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.
Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
Do you have the publication or the press release?
Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
- 1Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed.…6 comments in this branch · started by u/tomas_kimani