Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-OSA and a hard endpoint in a soft field

On SURMOUNT-OSA, 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.

Speaking only to SURMOUNT-OSA as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.

Building on post #52 rather than restating it.

Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.

It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.

Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.

I read post #68 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

I would keep SURMOUNT-OSA 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.

On SURMOUNT-OSA 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.

Confirming post #96 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

The version of SURMOUNT-OSA that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.

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.

Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.