Evidence · Journal club · continued

Journal club: the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper — a second dataset posts 61–80

Evidence › Journal club journal club estimand effect size Solved

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.

y.ibarraTL21 Jul 2025#61

Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.

2 likes 13mo

plateau_notesTL2Regular1 Jul 2025#62

e.halonen, post #50: Suggest the next paper at the end of the session rather than by message afterwards. The room has just worked out what it wants to know next. If that is already documented somewhere, ignore me and link it. Go to post

Post #59 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Second-hand on CagriSema phase 2 combination paper, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.

0 likes in reply to #50 13mo

n.vukovicTL22 Jul 2025#63

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.

19 likes 13mo

o.lindgrenTL2Regular3 Jul 2025#64

Somebody should be asked to argue the paper's case even if nobody in the room believes it. Sessions where everyone agrees produce a summary nobody can use.

Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.

8 likes 13mo

n.cardosoTL23 Jul 2025#65

s.duarte, post #60: Worth separating two things that post #58 runs together. The reason CagriSema phase 2 combination paper keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown. Go to post

Where the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.

0 likes in reply to #60 13mo

preregisteredTL3Research methods4 Jul 2025#66

f.villalobos, post #47: Somebody should be asked to argue the paper's case even if nobody in the room believes it. Sessions where everyone agrees produce a summary nobody can use. Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests. Go to post

The arithmetic on CagriSema phase 2 combination paper is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.

0 likes in reply to #47 13mo

a.pereiraTL25 Jul 2025#67

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

On post #63 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

An hour is enough for one paper read properly and not enough for two read partly. The temptation is always to add the second.

ppm_errorTL3Analytical chemist5 Jul 2025#68

Suggest the next paper at the end of the session rather than by message afterwards. The room has just worked out what it wants to know next.

5 likes 13mo

b.vanheckeTL26 Jul 2025#69

Quoting the sentence rather than paraphrasing it changes the discussion. Paraphrase is where a claim quietly becomes stronger than the paper made it.

0 likes 13mo

m.strand_rphTL3Pharmacist7 Jul 2025#70

Sessions run better when the paper is circulated with three specific questions attached. Open-ended reading produces an open-ended discussion.

28 likes 13mo

k.fonsecaTL27 Jul 2025#71

Post #70 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

The practical version of CagriSema phase 2 combination paper is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.

11 likes 13mo

k.vanheckeTL28 Jul 2025#72

m.ekstrom, post #28: An hour is enough for one paper read properly and not enough for two read partly. The temptation is always to add the second. I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this. Go to post

I would keep CagriSema phase 2 combination paper 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.

24 likes in reply to #28 13mo

k.perrinTL29 Jul 2025#73

TRIUMPH (ongoing): Retatrutide phase 3. No results yet. Nothing should be attributed to it because it has not finished. When it does, this discussion will return to it.

0 likes 13mo

bench_notesTL4 Moderator9 Jul 2025#74

plateau_notes, post #62: Post #59 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Second-hand on CagriSema phase 2 combination paper, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself. Go to post

Answering the question post #72 raises rather than the one it answers.

Somebody should be asked to argue the paper's case even if nobody in the room believes it. Sessions where everyone agrees produce a summary nobody can use.

3 likes in reply to #62 13mo

m.duarteTL210 Jul 2025#75

Confirming post #74 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

CagriSema phase 2 combination paper: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.

16 likes 13mo

o.vogelTL211 Jul 2025#76

I had written a reply contradicting post #72 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Careful with the language on CagriSema phase 2 combination paper. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.

32 likes 13mo

r.villalobosTL211 Jul 2025#77

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 disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.

r.danquahTL212 Jul 2025#78

to.varga, post #57: Practical answer on CagriSema phase 2 combination paper, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not. Go to post

Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.

6 likes in reply to #57 13mo

r.scholtenTL2Member13 Jul 2025#79

m.duarte, post #75: Confirming post #74 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person. CagriSema phase 2 combination paper: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which. Go to post

Session format: read the paper before posting. The discussion is much better when everyone has. Start with the estimand and population, then methods, then results, then limitations. That order makes critique coherent.

23 likes in reply to #75 13mo

ar.petrovTL213 Jul 2025 · edited#80

z.okonkwo, post #15: Narrowing post #12, because the general version has more than one answer. Bringing the previous paper on the same question makes the session much better and doubles the preparation. Worth doing every third session rather than every one. I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either. Go to post

CagriSema phase 2 combination paper sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.

0 likes in reply to #15 13mo

This topic was referenced in

Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor — does this still hold?Evidence › Journal club · 2 replies

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor Evidence › Journal club randomised trial journal club effect size risk of bias Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor Everything below is what sits behind that. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers…	+6	10	13k	28d
Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked Evidence › Journal club journal club randomised trial number needed to treat risk of bias Journal club: indirect comparison between two programmes, defended and attacked Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Trying to work out what would count as…	+122	131	5.2k	just now
Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? Evidence › Journal club number needed to treat randomised trial journal club Solved Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Bringing a claim rather than a paper, because the claim…	+116	120	23k	3mo
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size number needed to treat Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that. A follow-up question about orforglipron phase 2 that I…	+80	91	10k	11mo
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size Solved On the subject in the title: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before posting; the…	+61	65	2k	13mo

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Evidence › Trials open label discontinuation & dropout estimand randomised trial On the subject in the title: Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Subgroup analyses. It is mine, it is…	+71	79	906	3mo
Criticising the method without criticising the authors Evidence › Study critique disputed observational data confounding effect size Criticising the method without criticising the authors Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about criticising the method without criticising in a…	+55	61	60k	15mo
Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported Evidence › Journal club journal club estimand randomised trial effect size Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A question about what the numbers mean rather than what they…		2	52k	1mo
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly Compounds › Retatrutide retatrutide effect size preprint TRIUMPH programme The question in the title: What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Setting out what I think I know about this compound and…	+106	113	4.8k	17mo
Pooling trials with different estimands — what changed since Evidence › Meta-analyses publication bias risk of bias meta-analysis effect size Pooling trials with different estimands — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of Pooling trials with different…	+57	64	12k	7mo

Journal club: the CagriSema phase 2 combination paper — a second dataset posts 61–80

This topic was referenced in

Suggested topics

Related topics — sharing the tags journal club, estimand, effect size