Intersection · Evidence × open label
Evidence topics tagged open label
Topics in Evidence carrying the tag open label. Unblinded design and the biases it admits.
19 topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. I have seen SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) cited in support…
|
2 | 6.6k | 10h | |
|
Second pass at: Reading a trial's population section before its results
Second pass at: Reading a trial's population section before its results Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) cited in…
|
4 | 9.5k | 10h | |
|
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 ,…
|
+56 | 61 | 37k | 11h |
|
Composite endpoints and the component doing the work
Composite endpoints and the component doing the work Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021) cited in support of a claim I do…
|
+3 | 7 | 33k | 13h |
|
Interim analyses and stopping rules
Interim analyses and stopping rules Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not think…
|
+25 | 29 | 35k | 16d |
|
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…
|
+21 | 25 | 46k | 3mo |
|
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Comparing SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) with SURPASS-4 ( Lancet ,…
|
+71 | 79 | 906 | 3mo |
|
Follow-up: What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not
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…
|
2 | 7.2k | 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)…
|
+39 | 44 | 8.2k | 5mo |
|
Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Non-inferiority margins: how they are chosen and how they are abused Everything below is what sits behind that. Comparing SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) with…
|
+42 | 46 | 10k | 5mo |
|
Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper
Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do…
|
+38 | 44 | 4.8k | 10mo |
|
Coming back to: Sample size calculations, read backwards from the published number
On the subject in the title: Sample size calculations, read backwards from the published number Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before…
|
+82 | 88 | 1.8k | 11mo |
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023). Please read…
|
+82 | 87 | 1.1k | 12mo |
|
Interim analyses and stopping rules — does this still hold?
Interim analyses and stopping rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015) with SURMOUNT-4 (…
|
+30 | 34 | 29k | 13mo |
|
Second pass at: Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: Trial registration and comparing the protocol with the paper Everything below is what sits behind that. I have seen SCALE ( N Engl J Med , 2015)…
|
+30 | 34 | 33k | 13mo |
|
Reading a trial's population section before its results — does this still hold?
Reading a trial's population section before its results — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I have seen STEP 1 ( N Engl J Med ,…
|
+140 | 154 | 5.4k | 14mo |
|
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones
On the subject in the title: Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…
|
2 | 27k | 14mo | |
|
Follow-up: Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not
Open-label extensions: what survives and what does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Comparing SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023) with SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) and…
|
+22 | 26 | 397 | 16mo |
|
Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part
Reading a supplementary appendix and finding the interesting part — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in support of a claim I do…
|
+87 | 92 | 1.1k | 17mo |