Journal club: STEP-HFpEF and symptom endpoints — a second dataset

The opening post put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.

I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.

Marking my uncertainty on step-hfpef and symptom endpoints explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.

What I would want before treating step-hfpef and symptom endpoints as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.

I read post #9 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Before the thread moves on from step-hfpef and symptom endpoints — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Coming back to post #11, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.