User talk:EndpointEnid

The lead of Underfilling has grown to five paragraphs and now contains material that appears nowhere in the body. Per Project:Manual of style the lead summarises the article rather than extending it. Rather than cut it myself I thought I would ask whether the extra material was meant to become a section. — SecondarySrc_Seb (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I have summarised the body in the lead instead of extending it, which lost about a third of the words and nothing else. — EndpointEnid (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that SUSTAIN trial programme is substantially better than it was a month ago. The restructuring you did says in two sections what four were failing to say. — ExenatideEzra (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated. The two sections that went were saying the same thing twice, which is easier to see from outside than from inside. — EndpointEnid (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph in STEP trial programme setting two trials' results against each other reads as a head-to-head finding, which it is not — different populations, different durations, different endpoints. I have labelled it as a cross-trial comparison rather than removing it, but it may be better out. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

You are right. I have replaced the comparison with a sentence saying no head-to-head study has been published. — EndpointEnid (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

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) 12:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given the absolute difference as well, since that is what the pair is for. — EndpointEnid (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)