Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? posts 91–120
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.
I read post #88 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
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.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
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.
Picking up post #94: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it.
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.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Confirming post #98 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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 this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Adding the measurement that post #100 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.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
Post #98 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.
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.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #102 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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 shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
Confirming post #104 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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 general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one.
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.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
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.
On post #109 — 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.
The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
Picking up post #109: 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.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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 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 first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
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.
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.
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.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
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.