wendy_avl said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

Mine went the same way, slower. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

wendy_avl said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.

One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

How long did you give it before you decided it was working?

bri_stats said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.