Dr.PathRoch said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
bri_stats said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Read four things before the headline number. The population, because trial populations are selected and supported in ways that real cohorts are not. The comparator, because "better than placebo" and "better than the current standard" are different claims and get reported identically. The primary endpoint as pre-registered, because a secondary endpoint promoted after the fact is a hypothesis rather than a finding. And the completion rate, because a large effect in the half of participants who finished is a different result from a large effect in everybody enrolled.
One concrete data point for the thread. One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it. Reconstructing a timeline from memory three months later is how people end up unable to answer the one question that would have resolved it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsModerator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. No action needed from anybody.