tyler_CSCS said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
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 18,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced stroke risk (HR 0.82) over 4 years of follow-up[1].
These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.
[1] Registry-based cohort study, pre-print 2024.
LabKate said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
LabKate 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 metformin for T2DM prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsReporting back.
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.
jim_asheville said:LabKate said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to:
- Point estimate (HR/RR/OR) — center of the diamond
- Confidence interval width — precision of the estimate
- I² statistic — heterogeneity across studies
- Individual study weights — are results driven by one large trial?
- Prediction interval — range of plausible true effects in future settings
The the trial evidence meta-analysis shows a pooled RR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.69-0.86), I²=44%. This is a robust and consistent effect.