The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator. Three questions, and they resolve most disagreements in these threads.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?
VendorMark said:A quick sanity check on any figure quoted here: is it mean or median, is it intention-to-treat or completers, and what was the comparator.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. 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.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.
hans_munich 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 stroke risk (HR 0.82) over 5 years of follow-up[1].
These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.