CarlaRPh_TPA said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Pushing back on CarlaRPh_TPA here. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
BethLabQueen said:My own curve sits about four points below the published mean and I spent two months assuming that meant something was wrong with me or with my…
Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational studies can provide useful evidence.
A recent PSM study of 18,000 GLP-1 users vs matched controls showed reduced all-cause mortality (HR 0.81) over 4 years of follow-up[1].
These results complement the RCT data and suggest the benefits translate to real-world populations.
Dr.ReproEndo said:I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.
Dr.ReproEndo said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (n=8,400) found that the trial evidence was associated with a significant effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 8, which is comparable to statins for secondary prevention. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsOne thing that is still open after julia.endo’s answer:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up: I read the paper rather than the summary and the qualifier I was missing was in the second paragraph of the results.