[dynm]

OK looking at the original abstract:

> Semaglutide treatment did not affect average drinks per calendar day or number of drinking days, but significantly reduced drinks per drinking day (β, −0.41; 95% CI, −0.73 to −0.09; P = .04)

So they didn't find any reduction in (1) drinking, or (2) in the number of days that people drank, but they did technically find (3) a reduction in the number of drinks that people consumed on the days that they drank. So I guess what they said is technically correct... but I still think it's very odd not to mention the headline result that there was no actual reduction in drinking!

[wrs]

I don’t understand the math here. The average per calendar day didn’t go down, so the total drinking is the same. That total is distributed among the drinking days, which are also the same. So how can the drinks per drinking day have changed?

[dynm]

Strange, right? Take a look at figure 4 here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...

This is as in the abstract:

1. drinks/day declined in both groups and somewhat more in the treatment group but wasn't statistically significant 2. number of drinks/day basically wasn't different at all 3. drinks/drinking day didn't change in the placebo group but did decline in the treatment group

(These are all actually regression coefficients computed on non-random samples but nevermind.) Somehow it seems like what's happening is that 3 rises to statistical significance even though 1 doesn't.

[throwaway8287]

> a reduction in the number of drinks that people consumed on the days that they drank

I can attest to this myself. I used to be called an "occasional binge drinker" by my endocrinologist. Now I'm just an "occasional drinker". It definitely has cut back my consumption, I'd say by more than half, if not more.