Adjudicated events and why the definition matters — the long version
Absolute and relative effects answer different questions. Write down the event rate in each arm and the difference between them; everything quotable is derived from those two numbers.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Surrogate endpoints: an endpoint that is not the outcome that matters but is measured as a stand-in. HbA1c is a surrogate for long-term glucose control and the short-term complications it prevents. Weight loss is a surrogate for metabolic health and long-term outcomes. Surrogates are useful but not identical to the endpoint that matters.
This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.
Answering the question post #61 raises rather than the one it answers.
The reason Adjudicated events keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
One caution on Adjudicated events: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Post #109 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Checked the Adjudicated events claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Risk of bias: structured appraisal of internal validity. Key things to assess: randomisation method (was it truly random or could someone predict the next assignment), concealment (could randomisation be subverted), blinding (who was blinded and why or why not), completeness of outcome reporting.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
I had written a reply contradicting post #124 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Marking my uncertainty on Adjudicated events explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Read the full topic (147 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- Reading a trial's population section before its resultsEvidence › Trials · 109 replies
- [2026 update] How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratchEvidence › Trials · 53 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused Everything below is what sits behind that. A question about non-inferiority margins that I…
|
+42 | 46 | 10k | 5mo |
|
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Subgroup analyses. It is mine, it is…
|
+71 | 79 | 906 | 3mo |
|
[2026 update] Composite endpoints and the component doing the work
On the subject in the title: Composite endpoints and the component doing the work Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) with SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) and…
|
+76 | 87 | 994 | 3mo |
|
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Non-inferiority…
|
+32 | 37 | 574 | 5mo |
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Comparators chosen for…
|
+82 | 87 | 1.1k | 12mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags intention to treat, estimand, randomised trial
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on Non-inferiority…
|
+32 | 37 | 574 | 5mo |
|
Second pass at: Retatrutide dose escalation in the published trials
Second pass at: Retatrutide dose escalation in the published trials — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on Retatrutide…
|
+115 | 125 | 30k | 2y |
|
Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters
Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about primary endpoint hierarchies in a thread last spring and…
|
4 | 308 | 3mo | |
|
Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Semaglutide and alcohol: what is actually documented Everything below is what sits behind that. I would like to know what people here actually do about semaglutide…
|
+14 | 18 | 10k | 2d |
|
Revisiting: What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not
Revisiting: What SELECT changed about how semaglutide is discussed, and what it did not Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about SELECT in a thread…
|
2 | 1.9k | 5mo |