SURPASS — 24 things I got wrong before I got it right
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: SURPASS — 24 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 was substantial.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
Is that intention-to-treat or completers?
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.