Dr.BariatricHTX said:Read four things before the headline number.
Pushing back on Dr.BariatricHTX 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.
RunnerRach 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…
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 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.82), I²=30%. This is a robust and consistent effect.
VendorMark said:I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.
VendorMark said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (n=12,300) found that the trial evidence was associated with a clinically meaningful effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 12, which is comparable to antihypertensives for stroke reduction. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsReporting back.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.