The opening post describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Having read the whole STEP 4 thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Topic summary
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove
This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 66, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
DKwiatkowski, post #1: On the subject in the title: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read it before posting; the discussion is much better when everyone has. The question I would like us to start with is what the trial set out to estimate, rather… Go to post
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
Careful with the language on STEP 4. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
29 likes 16mo
i.osei, post #5: Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up. Go to post
Post #14 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Taking STEP 4 seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
integrator_trace, post #28: STEP 4 would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator. Go to post
Critical appraisal template: (1) What did the trial set out to estimate? (2) Could the design answer that question? (3) Was the population sufficiently similar to your population to apply the results? (4) What was the absolute effect, not just the relative one? (5) What are the two strongest criticisms available?
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
Post #42 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
32 likes 14mo
Post #51 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
32 likes 14mo
Read the full topic (66 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 |