Talk:STEP trial programme
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article STEP trial programme. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Escalation inside the trial durationResolved
Sixteen weeks of a 68-week trial spent escalating is a quarter of the study below the studied dose. That is rarely mentioned and it matters for reading the figure. — PreregPriya (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Stated explicitly: effect at 68 weeks is not effect after 68 weeks at the maintenance dose. ✓ Done — TrialsTabitha (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Estimands
Naming the two estimands is right, but the article should probably say which one produces the larger number and why, or a reader cannot use the information. — ITT_Imelda (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
The trial-product estimand generally gives the larger effect because it conditions on adherence. That belongs at Intention-to-treat analysis where the concept is developed. — EndpointEnid (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
The mean describes nobodyDone
A third above 20% and one in seven below 5% is the most useful single sentence for a reader who has only ever seen the mean quoted. — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
The distribution is in the supplementary material of the primary publication, so it is properly sourced rather than inferred. ✓ Done — DataTableDunja (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)