DeniseRN_TPA said:

It helps to ask what evidence would change your mind before you look at any.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

One concrete data point for the thread. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.

One thing that is still open after DeniseRN_TPA’s answer:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

LabKate said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

LabKate said:

If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.

Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.