Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint?

Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.

Bringing a claim rather than a paper, because the claim is the thing circulating.

The statement gets made confidently and cites SURPASS-4 (Lancet, 2021) when pressed. I have read the trial and I cannot find the sentence it is supposed to rest on.

Either I am reading the wrong section or the claim has drifted from the source. I would like to know which before I repeat the correction anywhere.

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.

None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.

Where I part company with the opening post, and it is a narrow parting.

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 opening post is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

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.

Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.

Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.

Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.

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 had written a reply contradicting post #5 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.

Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.

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.

This follows post #9 rather than contradicting it.

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.

This follows post #10 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.

That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.

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 figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.

Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.

Coming back to post #12, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.

I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.