A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
hank_denver said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
hank_denver said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.
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.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardshank_denver said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
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.