how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURMOUNT threads
how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURMOUNT threads. I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source. How to read one of these papers in fifteen minutes, in the order that actually helps. Start with the registered protocol and check the primary endpoint against what is…
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.
Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.
Agreed.
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote
check who the comparator was before you compare anything
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.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
What was the discontinuation rate?
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.
trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets
Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.
registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents
SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints