How I handle injection day travel — looking for input

Short answer first, then the reasoning. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

pete_manc_UK said:

The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to:

1. Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) — center of the diamond
2. Confidence interval width — precision of the estimate
3. I² statistic — heterogeneity across studies
4. Individual study weights — are results driven by one large trial?
5. Prediction interval — range of plausible true effects in future settings

The the trial evidence meta-analysis shows a pooled RR of 0.84 (95% CI 0.67-0.84), I²=42%. This is a robust and consistent effect.

wendy_avl 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…

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. 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.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

wendy_avl said:

...regarding the trial evidence...

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

A recent meta-analysis of 22 RCTs (n=18,900) found that the trial evidence was associated with a consistent effect size across diverse patient populations[1].

The NNT was 20, which is comparable to antihypertensives for stroke reduction. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.