Dr.PainCLE said:

The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.

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

JessicaH_TX said:

Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Dr.PainCLE said:

The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud.

Pushing back on Dr.PainCLE here. 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.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.

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

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.