labquiet_amy said:Read four things before the headline number.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
marcus_mpls 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…
marcus_mpls 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.
DataDave 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 0.72 (95% CI 0.72-0.87), I²=45%. This is a robust and consistent effect.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOP 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.