Topic summary

Follow-up: Journal club: the retatrutide phase 2 obesity paper

Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size journal club estimand Closed

This is a generated summary. It shows the 5 most-liked posts from a topic of 25, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

r.sobczakTL2 Moderator15 Mar 2025#4

FLOW (N Engl J Med 2024): Semaglutide renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Stopped early for efficacy. Component-by-component analysis is essential because the components differ in how patient-important they are.

21 likes 16mo

forest_plotTL3Evidence synthesis3 Apr 2025#18

This follows post #15 rather than contradicting it.

TRIUMPH (ongoing): Retatrutide phase 3. No results yet. Nothing should be attributed to it because it has not finished. When it does, this discussion will return to it.

30 likes 16mo

n.okwuosaTL2 Moderator4 Apr 2025#19

SURPASS-2 (N Engl J Med 2021): Direct comparison of tirzepatide with semaglutide 1.0 mg. The 1.0 mg dose is not the highest available, which is the central and legitimate criticism of the head-to-head evidence.

21 likes 16mo

s.ostergaardTL2 Moderator6 Apr 2025#21

post #20 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

SURMOUNT-1 (N Engl J Med 2022): Tirzepatide obesity trial. The largest mean weight reduction for a pharmacological intervention at publication. Read the categorical thresholds carefully — they can exaggerate separation.

33 likes 16mo

j.petrovTL2 Moderator10 Apr 2025#25

post #24 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

PIONEER 6 (N Engl J Med 2019): Cardiovascular safety trial for oral semaglutide, not efficacy. Non-inferiority for safety was met. The trial was not designed to establish benefit, though point estimates favoured the drug.

24 likes 16mo

Read the full topic (25 posts)

This topic was closed 30 days after the last reply. Closing is automatic for quiet topics so that a settled answer does not collect new questions underneath it. If you have a follow-up, open a new topic and link back to this one — that keeps both readable and gives your question its own title.

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release Evidence › Journal club number needed to treat effect size risk of bias journal club Solved On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: PIONEER 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2019). Please read it before…	+54	62	1.5k	26d
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Evidence › Journal club risk of bias number needed to treat randomised trial Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Comparing STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021) with SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024) and…	+118	132	12k	15mo
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand Evidence › Journal club journal club randomised trial number needed to treat risk of bias Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Comparing SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) with STEP 8 ( JAMA , 2022)…		3	11k	9h
Follow-up: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Evidence › Journal club randomised trial risk of bias effect size number needed to treat Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: orforglipron phase 2 and the non-peptide question Everything below is what sits behind that. Session topic: SURMOUNT-4 ( JAMA , 2024). Please read it…	+80	91	10k	11mo
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Evidence › Journal club number needed to treat risk of bias journal club effect size Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med ,…	+81	90	54k	9mo

Related topics — sharing the tags randomised trial, risk of bias, effect size

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Coming back to: Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Under review Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Comparing SURPASS-2 ( N Engl J Med , 2021) with STEP 4 (…	+109	116	36k	2d
Preprint servers and what screening they do Evidence › Preprints preprint effect size needs a source Preprint servers and what screening they do — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in support of a claim I do not think it…	+95	106	5.6k	4mo
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Evidence › Study critique risk of bias observational data confounding disputed Solved A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a claim I do…	+71	80	1.1k	14mo
Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on Evidence › Trials randomised trial intention to treat open label estimand Solved Comparators chosen for regulatory reasons rather than clinical ones — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023). Please read…	+82	87	1.1k	12mo
The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since Compounds › Semaglutide effect size SELECT trial randomised trial type 2 diabetes Closed The C-cell question: rodent findings and their human context — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen FLOW ( N Engl J Med , 2024) cited in support…	+61	65	1.3k	22mo