Randomised withdrawal is the cleanest design in this field and the least discussed
The evidence on stopping is better than the evidence on almost anything else in this field, because somebody deliberately randomised it.
TheCompound Journal
Reporting on incretins, compounding & the peptide supply chain
Page 9 of 13 of this archive, newest first.
The evidence on stopping is better than the evidence on almost anything else in this field, because somebody deliberately randomised it.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
Real-world persistence figures, with their definitions stated, because the definitions are doing most of the work.
A great deal of practice has grown up around intermittent schedules. The randomised evidence for any of them is, as far as the Journal can establish, nil.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
A withdrawal trial answers a narrower question than it appears to. This piece states which question.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
Dose reduction is not withdrawal, and the trials that tested withdrawal cannot be read as testing it.
The schedules in circulation, described accurately, with their evidentiary status attached.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
Three randomised withdrawal designs have tested what happens when treatment stops. Their results are consistent and they are consistently misreported.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.
The document is four pages. Three of them are about dates.