Topic summary

Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset

Evidence › Trials open label discontinuation & dropout estimand randomised trial

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 80, 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.

isotonic_driftTL1Member2 Mar 2026#1

On the subject in the title: Subgroup analyses: pre-specified versus discovered — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Posting a small dataset on Subgroup analyses. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.

What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.

27 likes 5mo

a.mwangiTL25 Mar 2026#2

I would keep Subgroup analyses 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.

29 likes 5mo

e.kjeldsenTL2Member14 Mar 2026#9

r.novak, post #8: Absolute and relative effects answer different questions. Write down the event rate in each arm and the difference between them; everything quotable is derived from those two numbers. Go to post

Picking up post #6: that is the part I would want checked first.

Adding a small correction to the Subgroup analyses summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.

28 likes in reply to #8 4mo

endpoint_lineTL3Regular16 Mar 2026#11

Answering the question post #7 raises rather than the one it answers.

Subgroup analyses: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.

26 likes 4mo

v.bruunTL225 Mar 2026#20

Picking up post #19: that is the part I would want checked first.

Absolute and relative effects answer different questions. Write down the event rate in each arm and the difference between them; everything quotable is derived from those two numbers.

I would call that likely rather than established.

25 likes 4mo

m.amankwahTL231 Mar 2026 · edited#27

Narrowing post #24, because the general version has more than one answer.

Risk of bias: structured appraisal of internal validity. Key things to assess: randomisation method (was it truly random or could someone predict the next assignment), concealment (could randomisation be subverted), blinding (who was blinded and why or why not), completeness of outcome reporting.

The reasoning is more useful than the number, which is why I have shown it.

30 likes 4mo

r.mwangiTL28 Apr 2026 · edited#37

i.beaulieu, post #21: Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed Subgroup analyses, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell. Go to post

The practical version of Subgroup analyses is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.

28 likes in reply to #21 4mo

a.silvaTL212 Apr 2026#42

Something worth flagging about Subgroup analyses: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.

26 likes 4mo

r.bruunTL21 May 2026#67

Adding the measurement that post #64 says would settle it.

I am confident about the direction and much less about the magnitude.

32 likes 3mo

Read the full topic (80 posts)

Promoted into the documentation commons. The content of this topic is maintained at SURMOUNT-1 — trial digest, with named maintainers and a review date. The promotion was discussed in doc review. Corrections are best raised against the document, which is the version that gets kept current.

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch Evidence › Trials randomised trial intention to treat surrogate endpoints estimand Solved The question in the title: How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Reading STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021) for the population rather than…	+73	81	17k	7mo
Interim analyses and stopping rules — does this still hold? Evidence › Trials estimand discontinuation & dropout open label surrogate endpoints Solved Interim analyses and stopping rules — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Interim analyses and stopping rules, from the point of view…	+30	34	29k	13mo
[2026 update] How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch Evidence › Trials estimand discontinuation & dropout surrogate endpoints Solved How to read a forest plot, properly, from scratch — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Reading SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) for the population rather than the…	+49	53	643	19mo
Follow-up: What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not Evidence › Trials randomised trial estimand open label surrogate endpoints What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A follow-up question about statistical analysis plan…		2	7.2k	3mo
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not Evidence › Trials open label discontinuation & dropout randomised trial surrogate endpoints Solved What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Statistical analysis plan, and specifically the version…		2	6.6k	10h

Related topics — sharing the tags open label, discontinuation & dropout, estimand

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported — a second dataset Evidence › Journal club risk of bias effect size randomised trial journal club On the subject in the title: Journal club: SELECT, absolute risk, and how it was reported — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on SELECT. It is mine, it is…		4	1.3k	1mo
Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters — one year on Evidence › Trials surrogate endpoints discontinuation & dropout estimand randomised trial Solved On the subject in the title: Primary endpoint hierarchies and why order matters — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about Primary endpoint hierarchies that I did not…	+56	61	37k	11h
Why cagrilintide alone is discussed so much less than in combination — does this still hold? Compounds › Cagrilintide & amylin analogues cagrisema randomised trial cagrilintide effect size Solved Under review Why cagrilintide alone is discussed so much less than in combination — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Cagrilintide alone:…	+27	31	1.2k	22h
The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet Compounds › Semaglutide STEP programme randomised trial type 2 diabetes effect size On the subject in the title: The most common factual error about semaglutide on the internet Working notes rather than a conclusion. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a compound…		2	49k	2y
Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold? Compounds › Semaglutide randomised trial type 2 diabetes STEP programme effect size Solved Tracking semaglutide's approved indications across jurisdictions, dated — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Practical question…	+58	62	49k	20mo