TRIUMPH program trial design overview — all Phase 3 arms

lucas_SP_BR said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.

lucas_SP_BR said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

That reframing is the part I needed.

Coming back to something from earlier in the thread, because it keeps being talked past:

Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread. Writing that down for the next person who wants the interesting answer.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

Resolved, and the thing that resolved it was the least interesting suggestion in the thread.

Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:

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.

Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.