NurseKim_ATL said:Read four things before the headline number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. 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.
VendorMark 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…
VendorMark said:...regarding the trial evidence...
I think this is an underappreciated point. To expand on it with some data:
A recent meta-analysis of 18 RCTs (n=15,600) found that the trial evidence was associated with a robust effect size across diverse patient populations[1].
The NNT was 15, which is comparable to antihypertensives for stroke reduction. That's a strong clinical argument for this approach.
Dr.RaviCardio said:I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them.
Forest plot interpretation for the the trial evidence meta-analysis: when reading the pooled estimate, pay attention to:
The the trial evidence meta-analysis shows a pooled RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.90), I²=38%. This is a robust and consistent effect.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after SleepDoc_PDX’s answer:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.