Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal

Taking post #6 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.

Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.

The arithmetic in post #14 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Small methodological point on SUSTAIN 6: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.

The strongest argument against my own position on SUSTAIN 6, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.

Coming back to post #35, 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.

The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.

Narrowing post #42, because the general version has more than one answer.

Two people in this thread mean different things by SUSTAIN 6 and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.

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 useful distinction on SUSTAIN 6 is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.

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.

The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.

This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.