Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. Relative and absolute effects need reading together. A 20% relative reduction on a high baseline risk is a large absolute benefit; the same relative figure on a low baseline risk is a small one, and press summaries almost always quote the relative number because it is bigger.

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

Dr.ObesityMed said:

Relative and absolute effects need reading together.

Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.

A recent PSM study of 25,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced all-cause mortality (HR 0.81) over 5 years of follow-up[1].

These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.

mike_mod 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…

This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so. 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.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice.

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.