The opening post and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Absolute numbers, not just relative: a 30% relative reduction tells you the ratio but not the practical magnitude. The event rate in each arm and the difference between them tells you how many people benefit.
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.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Confirming post #7 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A treatment-policy estimand asks what happens to people assigned to a strategy, including those who abandon it. A hypothetical estimand asks what would have happened had everyone continued. Both are legitimate and they give different numbers.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
Everything in post #19 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Absolute numbers, not just relative: a 30% relative reduction tells you the ratio but not the practical magnitude. The event rate in each arm and the difference between them tells you how many people benefit.
Read the full topic (27 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading a trial's population section before its results
On the subject in the title: Reading a trial's population section before its results Working notes rather than a conclusion. Reading STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021) for the population rather than the effect, which I…
|
+91 | 109 | 22k | 2mo |
|
Follow-up: What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A follow-up question about statistical analysis plan…
|
2 | 7.2k | 3mo | |
|
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 | |
|
Second pass at: Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper Everything below is what sits behind that. Two things I would like separated before…
|
+30 | 34 | 33k | 13mo |
|
Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters Everything below is what sits behind that. I was wrong about Primary endpoint hierarchies in a thread…
|
+21 | 25 | 46k | 3mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 | |
|
Why semaglutide's albumin binding is the whole reason weekly dosing works
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why semaglutide's albumin binding is the whole reason weekly dosing works Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a…
|
2 | 63k | 5mo | |
|
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A methods question rather than a substantive…
|
+10 | 14 | 8.4k | 16h |
|
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all
Why oral semaglutide needs an absorption enhancer at all I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Reading back through what has been written here about oral…
|
+59 | 65 | 61k | 7mo |
|
Second pass at: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components
Second pass at: Reading a combination trial: attributing effect to components — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. The question about Reading a combination trial that I…
|
+39 | 43 | 7.3k | 12mo |