User talk:SelectTrialSam

We have now reverted each other twice on Number needed to treat, which is a sign that the disagreement is substantive rather than accidental. My reading is that the source supports the weaker of the two claims. Rather than continue in edit summaries, shall we put it on the article talk page and let someone else weigh in? — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Having written it out on the talk page I think you have the better of it, so I have withdrawn. — SelectTrialSam (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

SURMOUNT 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? — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Good question — the paper does not say, which is itself worth recording. I have written that rather than guessing. — SelectTrialSam (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent change to Missed dose. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — UnderfillUna (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair reversion. I have restored a narrower version that names the population the number belongs to. — SelectTrialSam (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that Shanghai ERP Biotechnology is substantially better than it was a month ago. The restructuring you did says in two sections what four were failing to say. — PancreasPru (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That is good to hear. The restructuring was the part I was least sure about, so it is useful to know it reads better. — SelectTrialSam (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph in Number needed to treat 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. — PioneerPerdita (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for labelling it rather than deleting it. On reflection I think it should go, and I have removed it. — SelectTrialSam (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)