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 — 7 things I got wrong before I got it right — 23 comments in the full submission. View in context.
183
c/trialwatch·submitted 6 months ago by u/camila_vasquez

SURPASS — 7 things I got wrong before I got it right

Paperbranch of 8 comments

Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: SURPASS — 7 things I got wrong before I got it right. Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight. Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one…

Read the full submission and all 23 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 6 months ago
u/rulebook_rachaelmod · c/meta13 points·6 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/enzo_ferrari3 points·6 months ago

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

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_kuusela1 point·6 months ago

Agreed.

enzo_ferrari is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.

replysharereportpermalink
u/camila_vasquezOP2 points·6 months ago

Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hamza_weiss2 points·6 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/nordic_pricing3 points·6 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/nora_oyelaran1 point·6 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/hugo_bergstrom9 points·6 months ago

SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight

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
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 →