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.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
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.
Answering the question post #18 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
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.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
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.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Where I part company with post #50, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Read the full topic (82 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Interim analyses and stopping rules
Interim analyses and stopping rules Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about interim analyses and stopping rules on behalf of the question I keep seeing…
|
+25 | 29 | 35k | 16d |
|
Interim analyses and stopping rules — does this still hold?
Interim analyses and stopping rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Interim analyses and stopping rules, from the point of view…
|
+30 | 34 | 29k | 13mo |
|
[2026 update] How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch
How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Reading SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) for the population rather than the…
|
+49 | 53 | 643 | 19mo |
|
Reading a trial's population section before its results — does this still hold?
Reading a trial's population section before its results — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Reading STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021)…
|
+140 | 154 | 5.4k | 14mo |
|
Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper
Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin trial registration down and I want to…
|
+38 | 44 | 4.8k | 10mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
Composite endpoints and the component doing the work
Composite endpoints and the component doing the work Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Collecting what is known about composite endpoints in one place, because…
|
+3 | 7 | 33k | 13h |
|
Second pass at: Historical amylin analogues and what happened to them
Second pass at: Historical amylin analogues and what happened to them — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. The question about Historical amylin analogues that I actually want…
|
+15 | 19 | 22k | 18mo |
|
Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal
On the subject in the title: Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal Working notes rather than a conclusion. Reading SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) for the population rather than the effect,…
|
+110 | 122 | 46k | 1d |
|
Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator dose
Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator dose — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022). Please read it before posting; the…
|
+2 | 6 | 39k | 12mo |