Body dysmorphia after significant weight loss — when the mirror lies

DataDave said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

I read this differently from DataDave, on substance rather than tone. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.

SaraMom3 said:

My own curve sits about four points below the published mean and I spent two months assuming that meant something was wrong with me or with my…

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.

A recent PSM study of 12,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced stroke risk (HR 0.82) over 3 years of follow-up[1].

These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.

LabKate said:

I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.

LabKate said:

...regarding the trial evidence...

I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:

A recent meta-analysis of 18 RCTs (n=15,600) found that the trial evidence was associated with a robust effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 15, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.

One thing that is still open after mike.trainer_LA’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

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.