Research literacy
Research methods — reading metabolic peptide trials
Plain-English research-methods primer set: phase, population, endpoints, hazard ratios, non-inferiority vs superiority, surrogate vs clinical outcomes, randomised withdrawal designs, sponsor bias and evidence grading.
The same trial can be quoted as evidence for very different claims depending on how its phase, population, comparator and endpoint are framed. These primers are plain-English but rigorous, and assume no statistical background.
How to read metabolic peptide trials
Plain-English research-methods primer on reading trials of metabolic peptides and incretin medicines: phase, population, comparator, endpoints, hazard ratios, non-inferiority vs superiority, and the limits of cross-trial comparison.
Phase 2 vs phase 3 evidence
Why phase 2 trial results in metabolic peptides should not be conflated with phase 3 evidence. Sample size, population, statistical power and replication considerations.
Preclinical data vs human evidence
Why preclinical (animal and in vitro) data does not establish human safety or efficacy, and why this distinction matters when reading peptide research.
Surrogate endpoints vs clinical outcomes
Why HbA1c, body weight, MRI-PDFF and eGFR slope are surrogate endpoints and why MACE, kidney failure, hospitalisation and mortality are clinical outcomes.
Weight-loss percentage vs cardiometabolic outcomes
Why a larger percent body-weight reduction in a trial does not automatically translate into greater cardiovascular, kidney, hepatic or mortality benefit.
Open-label extension studies
Why open-label extension data is useful but cannot establish long-term safety on its own.
Randomised withdrawal designs
Plain-English explainer on randomised withdrawal designs such as SURMOUNT-4 and what they can and cannot prove.
Sponsor bias in metabolic drug trials
Why manufacturer-sponsored trials need to be read with care, what mitigations exist, and how to read across registry record, statistical analysis plan and publication.
How to compare trials without overclaiming
Practical rules for comparing metabolic peptide trials responsibly: same population, same endpoint, same definition, head-to-head where possible, methods declared.
Evidence grading methodology
How we assign Preclinical / Phase 1 / Phase 2 / Phase 3 / Outcome trial evidence / Licensed medicine evidence grades to peptides and trials on this site.
- It does not replace formal statistical training where a project requires that.
- It does not provide individualised treatment, prescribing or dosing advice.
- It does not establish that the editorial team has assessed any individual reader's trial-reading needs.