[Meta] proposal — a flair for FLOW posts
proposal — a flair for FLOW posts, and it will stay as it is unless somebody makes the case to change it.
Open-label extensions lose their randomisation. Anybody still enrolled at week 104 is a selected group and the numbers describe that group.
Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards. Completer analyses only those who finished. The second is systematically more flattering and both are legitimate if labelled.
A confidence interval is the range of effects compatible with the data. Two trials with overlapping intervals have not disagreed, whatever their point estimates look like next to each other.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Why comparing across trials almost never works, with the specific failure modes.
Different populations: an obesity programme and a diabetes programme enrol different people with different baseline characteristics. Different endpoints: body weight change, glycaemic control and cardiovascular events are not convertible. Different durations: 68 weeks and 72 weeks are not the same, and the curves have not flattened by either.
Different analysis populations: one paper reports intention-to-treat, another emphasises completers. Different support: some trial designs include structured lifestyle contact that no member of this board receives.
Stack those and the "X beats Y" tables that circulate here are comparing five things at once and attributing the difference to the molecule.
Why comparing across trials almost never works, with the specific failure modes.
Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.
Right — trial participants get structured support. Comparing yourself to a trial mean is comparing across two different interventions.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
What was the discontinuation rate?
Agreed. Half the arguments on this site are two people quoting different trials at each other without noticing.
Right — trial participants get structured support.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote
The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint with the reported one is a two-minute check and it is how outcome switching gets caught.