TrialTracker_MD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
TrialTracker_MD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
TrialTracker_MD said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.KarenChen said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Mine went the same way, slower.
Dr.KarenChen said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.