The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Following on from Dr.LeslieOBGYN — and this may be the naive question:
How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?
FDA_TrackerJim said:A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClosing the loop on my own question.
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.
Dr.PathRoch said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.