Evidence · Journal club · continued

Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove posts 61–66

Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size Solved

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.

d.tammTL221 Jun 2025#61

The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.

I have no interest in any supplier named above.

0 likes 13mo

a.nwosuTL223 Jun 2025 · edited#62

Worth separating STEP 4 as a question about the compound from STEP 4 as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.

5 likes 13mo

a.batistaTL225 Jun 2025#63

ak.kravchenko, post #21: Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows. Go to post

Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.

14 likes in reply to #21 13mo

k.perrinTL226 Jun 2025#64

The confident answers on STEP 4 and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.

29 likes 13mo

bench_notesTL4 Moderator28 Jun 2025#65

The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.

Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.

2 likes 13mo

e.vargaTL230 Jun 2025#66

On STEP 4: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.

9 likes 13mo

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size number needed to treat Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that. A follow-up question about orforglipron phase 2 that I…	+80	91	10k	11mo
[2026 update] Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? Evidence › Journal club effect size risk of bias randomised trial Journal club: is percentage weight change the right endpoint? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about what the numbers mean rather than what…	+105	118	18k	11mo
[2026 update] Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component Evidence › Journal club journal club randomised trial estimand Journal club: FLOW and the renal composite, component by component Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A question about what the numbers mean rather than what…		2	21k	9d
Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Evidence › Journal club journal club estimand randomised trial Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Orforglipron phase 2, and specifically the version of it that…	+120	132	13k	1d
Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-OSA and a hard endpoint in a soft field Evidence › Journal club estimand risk of bias number needed to treat Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-OSA and a hard endpoint in a soft field — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Collecting what is known about SURMOUNT-OSA in one place,…	+108	122	52k	7d

Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, risk of bias, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Second pass at: Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables Research Methods › Statistics number needed to treat confounding effect size worked example Posting this under the heading it deserves: Second pass at: Multiplicity when you track fifteen variables Everything below is what sits behind that. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on…		2	12k	18mo
Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version Compounds › Semaglutide STEP programme randomised trial type 2 diabetes On the subject in the title: Comparing the STEP programme populations: who was actually enrolled — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Comparing the STEP programme…		4	7.7k	11mo
Why tirzepatide titration schedules have more steps than semaglutide's Compounds › Tirzepatide SURMOUNT programme SURPASS programme randomised trial tirzepatide Solved Wiki Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why tirzepatide titration schedules have more steps than semaglutide's I have spent a fortnight trying to pin tirzepatide titration schedules down…		4	8.4k	7mo
Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — a second dataset Evidence › Study critique confounding risk of bias effect size disputed Solved Posting this under the heading it deserves: Selection into a registry and what it does to the estimate — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on Selection. It is…	+28	32	1.3k	1d
[2026 update] What the GIP component of tirzepatide is thought to contribute, and how confident we can be Compounds › Tirzepatide SURPASS programme randomised trial effect size Under review The question in the title: What the GIP component of tirzepatide is thought to contribute, and how confident we can be I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to know…	+109	124	31k	10mo