Dr.EndoIndy said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

ricardo_MIA said:

The absorption variability is real, but it partly averages out over weeks — the steady-state trough is less erratic than any single day would suggest.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Taking it to my next appointment.

Dr.EndoIndy said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.

One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed.