This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The arithmetic in post #58 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
Answering the question post #60 raises rather than the one it answers.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
SURMOUNT-OSA (N Engl J Med 2024): Tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnoea, using an objective physiological endpoint. Notable because soft endpoints are avoided. Two parallel trials addressed the confounder directly.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Confirming post #66 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
On post #67 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.
Picking up post #71: that is the part I would want checked first.
SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med 2022): Tirzepatide obesity trial. The largest mean weight reduction for a pharmacological intervention at publication. Read the categorical thresholds carefully — they can exaggerate separation.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Worth separating two things that post #71 runs together.
STEP 1 (N Engl J Med 2021): The pivotal obesity trial for semaglutide and the reference point for most subsequent comparison. Mean weight reduction was substantially larger than anything previously achieved pharmacologically.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
Coming back to post #82, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
Post #84 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
I read post #86 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
SURMOUNT-OSA (N Engl J Med 2024): Tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnoea, using an objective physiological endpoint. Notable because soft endpoints are avoided. Two parallel trials addressed the confounder directly.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.