But what did it work better than? How much better? What biases influenced that result? What is the incremental cost-effectiveness of doing this as opposed to another treatment? A good primer for this sort of issue is Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma
Hm? They both had very similar selection criteria for participants. The main difference was that DiRECT was more rigorous and had better control, making it more likely to reflect an actual difference rather than simply the biases of the study authors
-
-
Virta ran a trial, for whatever reason, that would almost certainly inflate the true result, which is why most experts I know aren't particularly impressed with the study. DiRECT, conversely, ran an impressively well-controlled real-world RCT that is much more reliable
-
That's one reason why many governments are implementing DiRECT but no one's interested in Virta. It's also far more expensive
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not really DiRECT had time diagnosed ^ years or less and HbA1c levels lower and upper limits as criteria no insulin etc ViRTA was simply between 21 and 65 I believe?
-
Their exclusions were almost identical, and limiting your age group from 21-65 practically limits the duration of T2DM/HbA1c (in all but very exceptional cases) so I'd say that "very similar" is a fair statementpic.twitter.com/270HKnaHN6
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.