This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Careful with the language on indirect comparison. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
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 disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
This follows post #91 rather than contradicting it.
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.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
On indirect comparison the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Everything in post #92 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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 conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
Confirming post #97 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.
I had written a reply contradicting post #96 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
STEP 1 (N Engl J Med 2021): The pivotal obesity trial for semaglutide and the reference point for most subsequent comparison. Mean weight reduction was substantially larger than anything previously achieved pharmacologically.
SURPASS-2 (N Engl J Med 2021): Direct comparison of tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg. The 1.0 mg dose is not the highest available, which is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
Everything in post #102 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Second-hand on indirect comparison, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
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.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
Post #104 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Something worth flagging about indirect comparison: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
I read post #106 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Reframing indirect comparison slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Confirming post #108 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Post #108 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
My experience of indirect comparison contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
Building on post #111 rather than restating it.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of indirect comparison yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
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.
Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read.
Post #113 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Indirect comparison is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
SURPASS-2 (N Engl J Med 2021): Direct comparison of tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg. The 1.0 mg dose is not the highest available, which is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.