In the weighting of the RCT, that seems a fact claim. How could it be written such that you’d agree with it given the below table?
I think a problem with the statement is that it gives the impression that the weighing of the 2020 RCT is the only concern about weighting (and maybe about the CEA as a whole), such that disregarding it would fully address the concern about weighting. That kind of aura is hard to avoid when you’re writing one-sentence claims, and probably explains much of the ? and s votes. So if I were trying to write a consensus statement, it would read something like:
Conditional on the rest of the CEA being sound, re-weighting the 2020 SM RCT from 13% to 0% would not change the outcome very much
I think a problem with the statement is that it gives the impression that the weighing of the 2020 RCT is the only concern about weighting (and maybe about the CEA as a whole), such that disregarding it would fully address the concern about weighting. That kind of aura is hard to avoid when you’re writing one-sentence claims, and probably explains much of the ? and s votes. So if I were trying to write a consensus statement, it would read something like:
Conditional on the rest of the CEA being sound, re-weighting the 2020 SM RCT from 13% to 0% would not change the outcome very much