Topic summary

Follow-up: Journal club: the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper

Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size journal club estimand Closed

This is a generated summary. It shows the 5 most-liked posts from a topic of 25, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

r.sobczakTL215 Mar 2025#4

Summarising the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.

21 likes 16mo

forest_plotTL3Evidence synthesis3 Apr 2025#18

Confirming post #15 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

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.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

30 likes 16mo

n.okwuosaTL24 Apr 2025#19

Sessions run better when the paper is circulated with three specific questions attached. Open-ended reading produces an open-ended discussion.

It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.

21 likes 16mo

s.ostergaardTL26 Apr 2025#21

Post #19 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

The thing about retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.

33 likes 16mo

j.petrovTL210 Apr 2025#25

Post #24 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

I have been on both sides of the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.

24 likes 16mo

Read the full topic (25 posts)

This topic was closed 30 days after the last reply. Closing is automatic for quiet topics so that a settled answer does not collect new questions underneath it. If you have a follow-up, open a new topic and link back to this one — that keeps both readable and gives your question its own title.

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release Evidence › Journal club number needed to treat effect size risk of bias journal club Solved On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it…	+54	62	1.5k	26d
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Evidence › Journal club risk of bias number needed to treat randomised trial 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…	+118	132	12k	15mo
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand Evidence › Journal club journal club randomised trial number needed to treat risk of bias Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021). Please read it before…		3	11k	9h
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size number needed to treat Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that. A follow-up question about orforglipron phase 2 that I…	+80	91	10k	11mo
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Evidence › Journal club number needed to treat risk of bias journal club effect size Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about STEP 4 that I actually want…	+81	90	54k	9mo

Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, risk of bias, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Under review Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about how this site should cite something…	+109	116	36k	2d
Preprint servers and what screening they do Evidence › Preprints preprint effect size needs a source Preprint servers and what screening they do — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The manuscript is on a…	+95	106	5.6k	4mo
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Evidence › Study critique risk of bias observational data confounding disputed Solved A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on claim built, and I…	+71	80	1.1k	14mo
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on Evidence › Trials randomised trial intention to treat open label estimand Solved 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
The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since Compounds › Semaglutide effect size SELECT trial randomised trial type 2 diabetes Closed The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of c-cell question…	+61	65	1.3k	22mo