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?
520
c/trialwatch·posted 10 days ago by u/customs_seizure_sid

[Stats] the placebo arm lost weight too. always ask by how much.

Stats Cold Box ×4

the placebo arm lost weight too. always ask by how much — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.

Why comparing across trials almost never works, with the specific failure modes.

Different populations: an obesity programme and a diabetes programme enrol different people with different baseline characteristics. Different endpoints: body weight change, glycaemic control and cardiovascular events are not convertible. Different durations: 68 weeks and 72 weeks are not the same, and the curves have not flattened by either.

Different analysis populations: one paper reports intention-to-treat, another emphasises completers. Different support: some trial designs include structured lifestyle contact that no member of this board receives.

Stack those and the "X beats Y" tables that circulate here are comparing five things at once and attributing the difference to the molecule.

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.

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.

Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.

591 up / 71 down89% upvoted17 commentsid ouyu6920 Jul 2026

17 comments

8 in this archive, depth 3

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/camila_vasquez44 points·10 days ago·edited

Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteria. Reading a weight number out of one is reading a secondary endpoint.

replysharereportpermalink
u/milan_mensah12 points·9 days ago·edited

What was the comparator?

replysharereportpermalink
u/ines_boateng28 points·9 days 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/sofia_wikstrom22 points·9 days ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/valeria_karlsen23 points·8 days ago

This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.

replysharereportpermalink
u/piotr_bruun16 points·8 days ago·edited

Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.

replysharereportpermalink
u/karl_fischer_kev12 points·8 days ago

What did the confidence interval look like?

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (1) →
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.