[Stats] relative risk reduction sells papers, absolute risk reduction makes decisions
relative risk reduction sells papers, absolute risk reduction makes decisions. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down. The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table. Argued for a week about a result and then read the…
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.
Yes — the interval is the finding. A point estimate with a wide interval is a hypothesis in a nice font.
read the endpoint before you read the headline
Agreed on comparators. "Superior" means nothing until you know superior to what and at what dose.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
customs_seizure_sid is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.