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.
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.
Coming back to post #61, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Post #61 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.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
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.
Confirming post #67 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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 part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
Adding the measurement that post #69 says would settle it.
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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
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.
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.
I had written a reply contradicting post #70 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
SURMOUNT-OSA (N Engl J Med 2024): Tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnoea, using an objective physiological endpoint. Notable because soft endpoints are avoided. Two parallel trials addressed the confounder directly.
Post #76 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Where I part company with post #75, and it is a narrow parting.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Narrowing post #76, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Everything in post #78 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
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.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
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 would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
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 has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.
Narrowing post #86, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Post #88 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.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.