This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Coming back to post #30, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Post #33 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
I read post #33 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
Taking post #37 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
That is the honest state of it as of this week.
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.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
Taking post #45 at face value and following it one step further.
FLOW (N Engl J Med 2024): Semaglutide renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Stopped early for efficacy. Component-by-component analysis is essential because the components differ in how patient-important they are.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
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.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
FLOW (N Engl J Med 2024): Semaglutide renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Stopped early for efficacy. Component-by-component analysis is essential because the components differ in how patient-important they are.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Taking post #55 at face value and following it one step further.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.