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 [Readout] REDEFINE 1 and what CagriSema actually adds over sema alone — 34 comments in the full submission. View in context.
915
c/trialwatch·submitted 14 days ago by u/week_one_wanda

[Readout] REDEFINE 1 and what CagriSema actually adds over sema alone

Readoutbranch of 7 comments

Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: REDEFINE 1 and what CagriSema actually adds over sema alone. 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…

Read the full submission and all 34 comments →

This branch

7 comments, started 13 days ago
u/first_hundred56 points·13 days ago

Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]42 points·13 days ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/nora_oyelaran63 points·13 days 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
u/week_one_wandaOP27 points·12 days ago

How long was the randomised phase before any extension?

replysharereportpermalink
u/tb500_tangent7 points·12 days ago

The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.

replysharereportpermalink
u/prior_auth_painappeals92 points·13 days ago

the appendix is where the interesting tables live

replysharereportpermalink
u/week_one_wandaOP23 points·12 days ago

Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.

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 →