This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #89 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
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.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
The arithmetic in post #93 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.
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.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Everything in post #93 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
I read post #97 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
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.
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.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
This follows post #101 rather than contradicting it.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
For what it is worth, the same held on the two occasions I checked.
Post #105 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
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.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
The arithmetic in post #109 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
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.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
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.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
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.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
This follows post #116 rather than contradicting it.
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.
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 mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Journal club: the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper
On the subject in the title: Journal club: the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper that I did not know to ask…
|
+20 | 24 | 8.7k | 16mo |
|
Journal club: SURPASS-2 and the semaglutide 1 mg comparator
On the subject in the title: Journal club: SURPASS-2 and the semaglutide 1 mg comparator Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it before posting;…
|
+71 | 76 | 52k | 21mo |
|
Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal
Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trying to establish the boundary conditions on SURMOUNT-4 and continuation…
|
+32 | 36 | 31k | 3mo |
|
Journal club: STEP-HFpEF and symptom endpoints
Journal club: STEP-HFpEF and symptom endpoints — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. The question about step-hfpef and symptom endpoints that I actually want answered is the…
|
+18 | 22 | 2.5k | 11mo |
|
Journal club: the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper
On the subject in the title: Journal club: the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper Working notes rather than a conclusion. CagriSema phase 2 combination paper — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
2 | 329 | 21h |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] Confounding by indication, explained with a concrete example
Confounding by indication, explained with a concrete example Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a…
|
+103 | 116 | 22k | 5mo |
|
How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result
The question in the title: How to read a phase 2 result without treating it as a phase 3 result I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Putting the numbers in the first post,…
|
+36 | 40 | 35k | 7mo |
|
A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about plateau in a thread last spring and I would…
|
+27 | 31 | 7.2k | 3mo |
|
Coming back to: Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals
Prediction intervals and why they are more honest than confidence intervals Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Prediction intervals — I have the observation and…
|
2 | 65 | 22mo | |
|
Blinding yourself: practical methods and their limits
On the subject in the title: Blinding yourself: practical methods and their limits Working notes rather than a conclusion. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about blinding yourself. Everyone…
|
+40 | 44 | 33k | 5d |