SelarDorr

SelarDorr t1_j7ilxie wrote

i dont see that as a major caveat. you can have a primary study with multiple secondary outcomes, in which the results of the secondary outcomes are just as meaningful as a study in which those outcomes are the primary.

the results of this analysis are still of a randomized double blind placebo controlled trial that directly compared the treatment group to the placebo group for the outcome in question. the fact that these results were not the primary focus of the study does not change its significance.

if it were a case where sample selection for the primary outcome somehow added a confounder for some of the secondaries, i see an argument there. but as far as i can tell, this wasn't the case here.

10

SelarDorr t1_j7ilh7a wrote

why would you write a title like this, with the percentage of natural births for the treatment group but not the control? Has much less meaning as an empirical number in my opinion.

​

the placebo group was 58%, resulting in a relative risk ratio of 1.13.

345