The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Evidence · Journal club

[2026 update] Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session

Solved
Solved by f.danquah in post #8
Suggest the next paper at the end of the session rather than by message afterwards. The room has just worked out what it wants to know next.

Jump to the accepted answer →

NV
n.vogelTL212 Jun 2026#1

Journal club: what we got wrong in an earlier session — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Bringing a claim rather than a paper, because the claim is the thing circulating.

The statement gets made confidently and cites STEP 4 (JAMA, 2021) when pressed. I have read the trial and I cannot find the sentence it is supposed to rest on.

Either I am reading the wrong section or the claim has drifted from the source. I would like to know which before I repeat the correction anywhere.

34 likes 2mo
AV
a.vermeulenTL220 Jun 2026#2

Reading a preprint in a session is fine provided the status is stated in the first minute and stays in the summary.

That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.

7 likes 1mo
RJ
r.jhannsdttirTL3Regular26 Jun 2026#3
a.vermeulen, post #2: Reading a preprint in a session is fine provided the status is stated in the first minute and stays in the summary. That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it. Go to post

Following, with nothing to contribute beyond having asked the same thing elsewhere.

1 like in reply to #2 1mo
VB
v.bergstromTL21 Jul 2026 · edited#4

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

A session that ends with a list of what remains unresolved is more useful than one that ends with a verdict. The unresolved list is what feeds the next reading.

0 likes 27d
V
VPoulsenTL3Regular6 Jul 2026#5

Bringing the previous paper on the same question makes the session much better and doubles the preparation. Worth doing every third session rather than every one.

Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.

25 likes 22d
PK
p.krastevTL210 Jul 2026#6
VPoulsen, post #5: Bringing the previous paper on the same question makes the session much better and doubles the preparation. Worth doing every third session rather than every one. Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand. Go to post

Post #4 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

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.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

12 likes in reply to #5 18d
CC
crossref_checkTL315 Jul 2026#7
FD
f.danquahTL2 Solution19 Jul 2026#8

Suggest the next paper at the end of the session rather than by message afterwards. The room has just worked out what it wants to know next.

7 likes 9d
IT
integrator_traceTL2Member23 Jul 2026#9
f.danquah, post #8: Suggest the next paper at the end of the session rather than by message afterwards. The room has just worked out what it wants to know next. Go to post

I read post #8 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Session format: read the paper before posting. The discussion is much better when everyone has. Start with the estimand and population, then methods, then results, then limitations. That order makes critique coherent.

The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.

1 like in reply to #8 5d
NK
n.kirchnerTL227 Jul 2026#10
crossref_check, post #7: Post #4 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one. Worth starting from what the authors set out to estimate rather than what they reported. Half the disagreements in a session dissolve once that is stated explicitly. Go to post

That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.

0 likes in reply to #7 1d

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Working notes on STEP 1 rather than a conclusion. I would rather…
MDAWRMJDVR+118 132 12k 15mo
About the Journal club category
Our recurring session. One named paper per topic, methods first, conclusions last. Everyone reads before posting. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every…
KHSDEMSCA+2 6 12k 16mo
[2026 update] Journal club: SURPASS-2 and the semaglutide 1 mg comparator
Journal club: SURPASS-2 and the semaglutide 1 mg comparator Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it…
EDHCITINR+126 138 31k 17mo
Journal club: how we handle discontinuation in obesity trials — what changed since
Journal club: how we handle discontinuation in obesity trials — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it…
OVFVIISLJB+14 18 35k 8mo
[2026 update] Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component
Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A question about what the numbers mean rather than what…
NBTAC 2 21k 9d

Related topics — sharing the tags journal club, effect size, estimand

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question
Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Orforglipron phase 2, and specifically the version of it that…
KBLKSSJLB+120 132 13k 1d
When a network meta-analysis is defensible and when it is not
When a network meta-analysis is defensible and when it is not I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Network meta-analysis, from the point of view of someone…
MVMBC 2 27k 4h
Coming back to: A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author
A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reading back through what has been written here about critique, three…
IAQLJB 2 1.3k 14mo
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on subgroup analyses, and I…
JHAEI 2 27k 1d
About the Progress reports category
Longitudinal self-reports with the method stated. Scales, tape measures, and their error bars. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
JMSLTSANHN 4 139 16mo