BariatricNurseD said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
BariatricNurseD said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (n=8,400) found that the trial evidence was associated with a significant effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 8, which is comparable to antihypertensives for stroke reduction. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Following on from carl_compliance — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
jason_paloalto said:BariatricNurseD said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals. Bayesian approaches provide probability distributions that are more intuitive for clinical decision-making.
For example: "There is a 98.5% probability that semaglutide 2.4mg produces >10% weight loss vs placebo" is more actionable than "RR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8-4.1, p<0.001."
The the trial evidence evidence is strong under both frameworks, but Bayesian analysis better communicates the degree of certainty for individual patient counseling.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClosing the loop on my own question.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.
Dr.RenalNash said:Bayesian meta-analysis perspective on the trial evidence: traditional frequentist meta-analyses report point estimates and confidence intervals.
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 0.83 (95% CI 0.69-0.88), I²=56%. This is a robust and consistent effect.