Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release

Marking my uncertainty on SURMOUNT-1 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.

Picking up post #11: that is the part I would want checked first.

Practical answer on SURMOUNT-1, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.

Adding the measurement that post #15 says would settle it.

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.

This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.

Everything in post #15 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Counterpoint on SURMOUNT-1, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.

For anyone finding this later: the short answer on SURMOUNT-1 is that it depends on one thing, and the rest of the thread is people identifying which thing.

Adding the measurement that post #37 says would settle it.

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.

The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.

Before the thread moves on from SURMOUNT-1 — 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.

Worth separating SURMOUNT-1 as a question about the compound from SURMOUNT-1 as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.