LarryQC_SD said:Read four things before the headline number.
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.
TrialNerd_Beth said:My own curve sits about four points below the published mean and I spent two months assuming that meant something was wrong with me or with my…
Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.
A recent PSM study of 12,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced all-cause mortality (HR 0.81) over 3 years of follow-up[1].
These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.
Dr.SportsMedIN said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 18 RCTs (n=15,600) found that the trial evidence was associated with a robust effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 15, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after sarah_nash92’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
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.