The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Evidence · Trials

Follow-up: What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not

SB
s.beaulieuTL2 Moderator30 Nov 2025#1

What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.

I have seen SUSTAIN 6 (N Engl J Med, 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows.

My reading is that the trial is sound for its own question and is being stretched to answer a different one. I might be wrong about that, which is why this is a topic rather than a correction.

What I would like from this discussion: someone who disagrees with me to say why, with the section of the paper they are relying on.

7 likes 8mo
EM
e.mensaTL2 Moderator24 Feb 2026#2

Risk of bias: structured appraisal of internal validity. Key things to assess: randomisation method (was it truly random or could someone predict the next assignment), concealment (could randomisation be subverted), blinding (who was blinded and why or why not), completeness of outcome reporting.

0 likes 5mo
TT
taper_tableTL3Regular26 Apr 2026 · edited#3

Open-label design: unblinded trials admit expectation effects. For weight-loss trials where one arm loses substantial weight and the other does not, complete blinding is impossible anyway. The unblinded nature is a limitation worth noting.

25 likes 3mo

Suggested topics

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters — one year on
On the subject in the title: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) with SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med ,…
SCAJNGRMGT+56 61 37k 11h
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) with…
FTJIRHAAP+32 37 574 5mo
Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) with SURPASS-2 ( N…
AHGJTCVMS+21 25 46k 3mo
[2026 update] Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part
On the subject in the title: Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) with FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024)…
KFIDFIOCH+39 44 8.2k 5mo
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023) with SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) and finding the…
JHAEI 2 27k 1d

Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, estimand, open label

TopicParticipantsRepliesViewsActivity
Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) with STEP 4 (…
LSDOJFPWCL+6 10 13k 28d
[2026 update] Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Does dual agonism explain the effect size, or is it dose? Session topic: SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023). Please read it before posting; the…
ZCFFDNSRL+58 63 40k 9mo
Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version
On the subject in the title: Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019) with…
ATMFEWSH 4 7.7k 11mo
[2026 update] Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part
On the subject in the title: Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SELECT ( N Engl J Med , 2023) with FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024)…
KFIDFIOCH+39 44 8.2k 5mo
Follow-up: Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data?
Is "synergy" the right word for the combination data? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a…
CLBKSS 2 41k 14mo