how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from TRIUMPH threads
how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from TRIUMPH threads. I would rather ask a basic question now than get this wrong quietly for two months. A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point…
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 reported. Then the methods: who was included, what the comparator was, how long the randomised phase ran. Then the discontinuation numbers, which are a tolerability result and are usually in a supplementary table.
Only then the efficacy figure, and read the interval rather than the point estimate. Finish with the limitations section, which is where the authors say what they actually think.
Fifteen minutes, and you will know more than any thread summarising it.
How to read one of these papers in fifteen minutes, in the order that actually helps.
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
Agreed.
hub_ops is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
hub_ops is right about the programme names.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
Absolute or relative risk reduction?
What did the confidence interval look like?