This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
LEADER would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
An hour is enough for one paper read properly and not enough for two read partly. The temptation is always to add the second.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Adding the measurement that post #62 says would settle it.
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.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
The arithmetic on LEADER is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
Where the LEADER 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.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
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 post #68 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
Small correction to my own earlier position on LEADER. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
I had written a reply contradicting post #71 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
Confirming post #71 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
An hour is enough for one paper read properly and not enough for two read partly. The temptation is always to add the second.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
This follows post #74 rather than contradicting it.
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.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Coming back to post #76, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of LEADER and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
The question underneath LEADER is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
Post #76 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
What I would want before treating LEADER as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
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.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Post #78 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
The confident answers on LEADER and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Journal club: how we handle discontinuation in obesity trials — what changed since
Journal club: how we handle discontinuation in obesity trials — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it…
|
+14 | 18 | 35k | 8mo |
|
Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal — does this still hold?
The question in the title: Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Reading SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+60 | 66 | 12k | 16mo |
|
Journal club: STEP-HFpEF and symptom endpoints — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Journal club: STEP-HFpEF and symptom endpoints — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on step-hfpef and symptom endpoints. It is mine,…
|
+11 | 15 | 4k | 10mo |
|
Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on SURMOUNT-4 and…
|
+58 | 64 | 17k | 13mo |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Working notes on STEP 1 rather than a conclusion. I would rather…
|
+118 | 132 | 12k | 15mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it Everything below is what sits behind that. A question about how this site should cite something that…
|
+96 | 119 | 17k | 3mo |
|
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since
On the subject in the title: A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the…
|
+3 | 7 | 125 | 8mo |
|
What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism
What is genuinely unknown about long-term amylin agonism — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A comparison question rather than a question about one…
|
+83 | 91 | 46k | 1d |
|
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind
Second pass at: Designing a personal experiment that could change your mind Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about Designing a personal…
|
+39 | 44 | 632 | 14mo |
|
Heterogeneity as information rather than as a nuisance
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Heterogeneity as information rather than as a nuisance Everything below is what sits behind that. An honest uncertainty about heterogeneity rather than a disguised…
|
+88 | 95 | 1.2k | 6mo |