Second pass at: Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor

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.

Worth separating two things that post #20 runs together.

Summarising the LEADER thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.

A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for LEADER post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.

I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about LEADER than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.

On post #46 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

I would keep LEADER and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.

Adding the measurement that post #53 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.

That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.

LEADER would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.

Adding the measurement that post #62 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.

Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.

I had written a reply contradicting post #71 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

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.

I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.