One thing that is still open after Dr.NateNeph’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

Dr.RheumBOS said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I think the framing smuggles in the conclusion. Ask it the other way round and the obvious answer reverses, which usually means the question is doing the work.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

Dr.RheumBOS said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.

Dr.RheumBOS said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.