Taking post #28 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
32 likes 4mo
Evidence · Journal club · continued
Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
0 likes 4mo
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.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
3 likes 4mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
a.hartmann, post #32: Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend. Go to post
Building on post #32 rather than restating 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 want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
Post #35 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline 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.
1 like 4mo
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.
6 likes 4mo
n.torrence, post #26: Confirming post #23 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person. SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med 2022): Tirzepatide obesity trial. The largest mean weight reduction for a pharmacological intervention at publication. Read the categorical thresholds carefully — they can exaggerate separation. Go to post
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
Worth separating two things that post #40 runs together.
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.
4 likes 4mo
This follows post #40 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.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
0 likes 4mo
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.
8 likes 4mo
ms_holloway, post #11: 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. Go to post
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 reporting what happened, not recommending it.
On post #43 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
7 likes 4mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
s.achebe, post #27: 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. I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude. Go to post
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.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule 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.
12 likes 4mo
KForsberg, post #45: On post #43 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend. I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread. Go to post
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.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
e.dalgleish, post #3: 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. Go to post
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.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
a.reyes, post #15: Picking up post #14: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative. Go to post
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.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
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.
2 likes 4mo
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
5 likes 4mo
Knowlton, post #22: Post #21 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition. 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. Go to post
On post #52 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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 most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
0 likes 4mo
j.solberg, post #48: Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point. Go to post
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.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
This follows post #58 rather than contradicting 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.
19 likes 4mo