Knowledge and sourcing
Research reading group
One paper a fortnight, read properly.
Every fortnight we take one paper and read it properly: the actual population, the actual comparator, the primary endpoint, the withdrawals, who funded it. About a third of the time the conclusion everyone repeats turns out to be several steps further than the paper went.
You do not need a science background. Several members here are clinicians or statisticians and they are the ones most insistent that the group stays readable.
Who this circle is for
- You want to read the evidence rather than posts about the evidence
- You have a background that would help others
- You are sceptical and would like somewhere to be sceptical usefully
Agreements here
- We read the paper before we discuss it
- Nobody is made to feel stupid for asking what a hazard ratio is
Number needed to treat as a habit of mind
Bea15 replies
Starting a thread on this because it keeps coming up in ones and twos: Number needed to treat as a habit of mind Putting this here because I do not want to be sold anything, I want to know…
STEP 4 and the withdrawal question, without the panic
Ammi15 replies
A question rather than an update: STEP 4 and the withdrawal question, without the panic I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it. What I would find most useful is not…
SELECT: what a 20 per cent relative reduction means in absolute terms
Nissa9 replies
A question rather than an update: SELECT: what a 20 per cent relative reduction means in absolute terms I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it. The thing that has…
SURMOUNT-4 read alongside STEP 4
Nadja17 replies
SURMOUNT-4 read alongside STEP 4 Writing it down partly to work out what I actually think. I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it. My prescriber has been fine,…
What none of these trials can tell us yet
Patrick18 replies
Starting a thread on this because it keeps coming up in ones and twos: What none of these trials can tell us yet Evidence question. I would rather have an honest "we do not know" than a…
Absolute versus relative risk, one more time
Bea17 replies
Absolute versus relative risk, one more time Writing it down partly to work out what I actually think. Putting this here because I do not want to be sold anything, I want to know what is…
Reading a conflict of interest statement properly
Abel20 replies
Reading a conflict of interest statement properly Writing it down partly to work out what I actually think. Evidence question. I would rather have an honest "we do not know" than a…
Who was excluded from these trials, and who that leaves out
Pam13 replies
A question rather than an update: Who was excluded from these trials, and who that leaves out Putting this here because I do not want to be sold anything, I want to know what is actually…
FLOW and the kidney endpoints
Bettina22 replies
FLOW and the kidney endpoints — putting it in its own thread so it does not get lost in the check-in. I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it. I have read the guides…
SUMMIT and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Saoirse19 replies
Something I have been sitting with: SUMMIT and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction Not looking for advice so much as other people's experience. Putting this here because I do…
SURMOUNT-1 and what the comparator actually was
Xan19 replies
SURMOUNT-1 and what the comparator actually was — putting it in its own thread so it does not get lost in the check-in. I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it. Here…
How to read a funnel plot
Patrick24 replies
Something I have been sitting with: How to read a funnel plot Not looking for advice so much as other people's experience. I have read the paper and I am not sure I have understood it.…
SURPASS-2 and the head-to-head design
Nadja24 replies
A question rather than an update: SURPASS-2 and the head-to-head design Putting this here because I do not want to be sold anything, I want to know what is actually established. I have…
A small study that got enormous coverage and should not have
Fabian21 replies
A small study that got enormous coverage and should not have — putting it in its own thread so it does not get lost in the check-in. Evidence question. I would rather have an honest "we do…