Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor

What I would check first on LEADER is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.

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.

One caution on LEADER: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.

Practical note on LEADER: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.

This follows post #40 rather than contradicting it.

Adding a small correction to the LEADER summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.

On LEADER, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.

I read post #57 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Offering a way to settle LEADER rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.

On LEADER I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.

I would keep LEADER and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.