Injection site rotation systematic review — does location affect absorption?

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?

josh_phd_bmore said:

A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.

Coming at josh_phd_bmore’s question from a different direction. 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.

Closing the loop on my own question.

Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.

DebRD_ATL said:

Read four things before the headline number.

Side effect timeline for injection-site reactions based on my experience and tracking:

Most side effects are transient and self-limiting. The key is pushing through the first month — it gets dramatically better.