BethLabQueen said:The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.
Pushing back on BethLabQueen 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.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
PurityPaulOR said:I keep finding that the number in the press summary and the number in the paper are not the same number, and the difference is always in the same…
PurityPaulOR 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.
JessicaH_TX said:I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.
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 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.88), I²=46%. This is a robust and consistent effect.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsFollowing on from Dr.RaviCardio — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.