Pregnancy and pregnancy planning: contraindication and washout posts 91–120

Pregnancy and breastfeeding are the clearest cases where the answer is that the trials excluded them and the labelling reflects that exclusion.

If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.

The honest answer on pregnancy and pregnancy planning is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.

Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.

I read post #105 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

One more thing on pregnancy and pregnancy planning that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.

That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.

Worth separating two things that post #105 runs together.

Being outside the studied population does not mean a treatment is unsafe. It means the usual evidence is not available and the reasoning has to be explicit.

This follows post #109 rather than contradicting it.

Genetic and ancestry-related differences in response are asked about regularly and the published evidence is thin enough that the honest answer is short.

The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.

Whatever the answer on pregnancy and pregnancy planning turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.

Careful with the language on pregnancy and pregnancy planning. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.

Post #112 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and the questions asked here are precisely the ones that need an individual assessment.

I have no interest in any supplier named above.

I read post #110 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.

I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.

Picking up post #112: that is the part I would want checked first.

Post-surgical populations, particularly after procedures affecting the gastrointestinal tract, interact with a delayed-emptying mechanism in ways that need specialist input.

That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.

The number people quote for pregnancy and pregnancy planning is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.

Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.

Coming back to post #114, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Reading this pregnancy and pregnancy planning thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.

Post #118 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Body weight at the extremes of the studied range affects exposure and the trials rarely reported enough to say by how much.

A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.