User talk:TrialsTabitha

Two of the event rates in STEP trial programme appear without the corresponding placebo rate. The house convention is to give both, because a rate on treatment alone cannot be interpreted. If you have the paper to hand the control figures should be in the same table. — DataTableDunja (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Added, both of them. You are right that the treatment rate alone was close to meaningless. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I have tagged the four trials in Intention-to-treat analysis that are named without a registration identifier. It is the one piece of metadata that lets a reader find the protocol and check what was pre-specified, so it matters more here than a page number would. — FootnoteFyfe (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

All four found and added. Two of them turned out to be the same programme under different names. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

A move has been proposed at Talk:SELECT trial. Since you wrote most of the article's current text you may have a view on whether the proposed title is the one a reader would search for. — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have opposed, with a redirect from the proposed title as the alternative, which serves the same reader. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Two of the event rates in Intention-to-treat analysis appear without the corresponding placebo rate. The house convention is to give both, because a rate on treatment alone cannot be interpreted. If you have the paper to hand the control figures should be in the same table. — TFA_Counterion (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair. The control figures were in a supplementary table, which is why I missed them. Both rows now carry the pair. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reworded one sentence in Intention-to-treat analysis that read as an endorsement. The underlying fact is sourced and stayed; only the adjective went. See Project:Neutral point of view — the relevant part is that a number is almost always better than an adjective where one exists. — ParentCatPansy (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I have replaced the description with the figure it was standing in for. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

TRIUMPH trial programme gives the primary result without saying whether it is intention-to-treat or per-protocol. For a trial with this much discontinuation the two differ materially. Does the publication state it, or is it in the statistical analysis plan? — SurrogateSunday (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The publication states it: intention-to-treat, with a per-protocol sensitivity analysis. Both are now in the table. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Intention-to-treat analysis gives the primary result without saying whether it is intention-to-treat or per-protocol. For a trial with this much discontinuation the two differ materially. Does the publication state it, or is it in the statistical analysis plan? — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It is in the statistical analysis plan rather than the paper. I have cited the plan and named the population. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)