LarryQC_SD said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Pushing back on LarryQC_SD here. 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.
labquiet_amy said:I keep finding that the number in the press summary and the number in the paper are not the same number, and the difference is always in the same…
labquiet_amy said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (n=8,400) found that the trial evidence was associated with a significant effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 8, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
PharmD_Rodriguez said:I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.
Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to:
The the trial evidence meta-analysis shows a pooled RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.67-0.82), I²=50%. This is a robust and consistent effect.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from Dr.DermMIA — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
Closing the loop on my own question.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.