TrialNerd_Beth said:Read four things before the headline number.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
jason_paloalto said:Agreed on the mechanism, with the caveat that the head-to-head used semaglutide 1mg, not 2.4mg.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Taking it to my next appointment.
TrialNerd_Beth said:Read four things before the headline number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsThe figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.