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 SURPASS — 11 things I got wrong before I got it right — 56 comments in the full submission. View in context.
3.7k
c/trialwatch·submitted 1 year ago by u/ewan_tulloch

SURPASS — 11 things I got wrong before I got it right

Readoutbranch of 9 comments

SURPASS — 11 things I got wrong before I got it right. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down. 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.…

Read the full submission and all 56 comments →

This branch

9 comments, started 1 year ago
u/cesar_ivaturi205 points·1 year ago

intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially

replysharereportpermalink
u/hazard_ratio_halstats69 points·1 year ago

Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.

replysharereportpermalink
u/trialwatch_theotrial nerd25 points·1 year ago

Right — trial participants get structured support. Comparing yourself to a trial mean is comparing across two different interventions.

replysharereportpermalink
u/plateau_patrol20 points·1 year ago

phase 2 finds a dose, phase 3 measures the effect

replysharereportpermalink
u/ines_castellanos15 points·1 year ago

Do you have the publication or the press release?

replysharereportpermalink
u/nhs_waitlist_nUK38 points·1 year ago·edited

Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.

replysharereportpermalink
u/week_four_wall10 points·1 year ago

Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.

replysharereportpermalink
u/niels_norgaard5 points·1 year ago·edited

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/cloudy_vial_carol1 point·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

← 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.com
Sponsored

GL Biochem (Shanghai)

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

glbiochem.net
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.