Research methods
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.
Trial comparisons are powerful when done carefully and misleading when done loosely. The rule of thumb: prefer head-to-head data; otherwise declare the comparison's assumptions explicitly.
Best: head-to-head trials
SURMOUNT-5 and SURPASS-2 are the clearest head-to-head comparisons in the modern era. Their results should be cited where the comparison is between the molecules they actually tested.
Useful: indirect treatment comparisons with declared methods
Network meta-analyses with explicit assumptions are appropriate for comparing molecules that have not been tested head-to-head. They are sensitive to the assumptions.
Avoid: side-by-side headline numbers across different trials
Quoting SURMOUNT-1's tirzepatide percent reduction next to STEP 1's semaglutide percent reduction as if they are a direct comparison ignores the population, comparator and design differences. It looks tidy and is misleading.
Key takeaways
- Head-to-head trial data, when available, beats cross-trial inference.
- Network meta-analyses are useful with declared assumptions.
- Side-by-side headline comparisons across different trials are usually overclaiming.
- Formal statistical training.
- Individual treatment, prescribing or dosing advice.
- Permission to skip the original publication of any trial cited.