From Research Paper to Blog Post — PubMed2Blog Content Pipeline

You: Write a blog post based on this study:
PMID 38234567 — the new GLP-1 agonist comparison trial.
Target audience: health-conscious adults, not clinicians.
Tone: informative but conversational. 1,200 words.

## Draft Blog Post

TITLE: Not All Weight Loss Drugs Are Created Equal —
What the Largest GLP-1 Comparison Trial Actually Found

HOOK: If you've heard of Ozempic, Wegovy, or Mounjaro,
you've heard the hype. But which one actually works best?
A new head-to-head trial with 3,400 participants finally
gives us an answer — and it's more nuanced than the
headlines suggest.

[1,200 words of accessible, accurate content]

---

EDITORIAL NOTES FOR YOU:

Study quality: HIGH (Phase 3b, multi-center, double-blind,
adequate sample size, 72-week follow-up)

What I simplified:
- Omitted per-protocol vs ITT analysis details
- Rounded percentages to nearest whole number
- Described "statistically significant" as "meaningful
  difference" with effect size context

What I preserved:
- Exact weight loss percentages from both arms
- Side effect rates and dropout numbers
- Funding source disclosure (manufacturer-sponsored)
- Limitation about generalizability (study population
  was 78% white, 68% female)

Red flags to mention if you want a more critical take:
- Manufacturer-funded (Eli Lilly sponsored)
- Primary endpoint was % weight loss, not patient-
  reported outcomes or long-term health markers
- No data beyond 72 weeks — we don't know about
  weight regain

Suggested social media pull quotes:
1. "The largest GLP-1 comparison ever: 3,400 people,
   72 weeks, and a clear winner — with caveats."
2. "Weight loss drugs work. But which one works best
   for YOU depends on more than the headline number."

SEO keywords: GLP-1 comparison, Ozempic vs Mounjaro,
weight loss drugs 2026, tirzepatide vs semaglutide

⚠️ ACCURACY CHECK — Issues I avoided:

1. CORRELATION ≠ CAUSATION: This was an RCT, so causal
   language is appropriate here. (Many health articles
   misuse causal language from observational studies.)

2. RELATIVE vs ABSOLUTE risk: The study reports both.
   I used absolute numbers in the blog post because
   relative risk reduction sounds more dramatic than
   it is. "50% more weight loss" vs "3 additional kg"
   — both are true, one is misleading.

3. CHERRY-PICKING: I included BOTH primary AND secondary
   endpoints, including the ones that didn't favor the
   sponsor's drug.

4. HEADLINE ACCURACY: My title says "not all equal" —
   this is supported. Avoided: "One drug CRUSHES the
   competition" (oversells the effect size).

skills:
  - pubmed
  - medicine
  - medical-research-toolkit  # For cross-referencing