Has anyone dealt with rybelsus real-world vs clinical trial efficacy?

Dr.EM_Chicago said:

There is a difference between no evidence and evidence of no effect, and this subject is one where the two get swapped freely in both directions.

Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

hank_denver said:

Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.

Coming at hank_denver’s question from a different direction. 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.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. 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.

Following on from hank_denver — and this may be the naive question:

How to read a result like this without either dismissing it or over-reading it, since the summaries all read like press releases?

Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.