PharmD_Rodriguez said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly.

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 0.85 (95% CI 0.65-0.90), I²=58%. This is a robust and consistent effect.

CarlaRPh_TPA said:

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…

Pushing back on CarlaRPh_TPA here. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

One concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here.