pat_auckland said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself. Four weeks is the usual minimum for anything pharmacological on this board, and two weeks of data has told you almost nothing.
One thing that is still open after pat_auckland’s answer:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsdan_philly said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.