DebRD_ATL said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
AussieAnna said:Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion.
That reframing is the part I needed. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.
DebRD_ATL said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.
Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.