Dr.ReproEndo said:Read four things before the headline number.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly.
lori_vegas said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (n=12,300) found that the trial evidence was associated with a clinically meaningful effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 12, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Dr.EndoEP said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. No action needed from anybody.