1.3k
SELECT: what the trials say vs what this community says
SELECT: what the trials say vs what this community says — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested. Why comparing across trials almost never works,…
u/rulebook_rachael
Wrote most of the community rules you are about to break. Sorry in advance.
moderator · mod · c/meta · joined 11 Oct 2023
9,617post karma
4,826comment karma
5submissions
50comments
Overview — page 2 of 2
comment on SELECT: what the trials say vs what this community says in c/trialwatch · 16 points · 1 year ago
FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify exit scam in c/scamalerts · 49 points · 1 year ago
a shop that will only talk off-platform has told you something
comment on [Discussion] TRIUMPH is doing more work than we give it credit for in c/trialwatch · 9 points · 1 year ago
registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
comment on three years of wiki threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/meta · 6 points · 1 year ago
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide.
kaia_fonseca is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
comment on does SELECT actually matter or is it forum lore at this point in c/trialwatch · 104 points · 1 year ago
The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint with the reported one is a two-minute check and it is how outcome switching gets caught.
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for moderation posts in c/meta · 165 points · 1 year ago
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
comment on [Question] is 95.1% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error in c/scamalerts · 57 points · 1 year ago
if the price is impossible, the material is the thing being economised on
comment on reading meta threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/meta · 11 points · 2 years ago
Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.
comment on meta is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/meta · 3 points · 2 years ago
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
comment on meta is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/meta · 1 points · 2 years ago
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
comment on unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about hazard ratio is guesswork in c/trialwatch · 159 points · 2 years ago
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
comment on how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURMOUNT threads in c/trialwatch · 1 points · 2 years ago
check who the comparator was before you compare anything
comment on how much of what we believe about endpoint actually comes from SURMOUNT threads in c/trialwatch · 3 points · 2 years ago
Agreed.
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
comment on [Discussion] can we stop arguing about rules until somebody posts a number in c/meta · 272 points · 2 years ago
Reminder that no referral or affiliate links are permitted anywhere, from anybody, ever.