TrialNerd_Beth said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
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.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
jennifer_SEA said:Worth adding that the tablet is taken daily, so a missed dose costs far less than a missed weekly injection.
Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it.
TrialNerd_Beth said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.