[Meta] the FLOW rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
the FLOW rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining. Nothing about this affects the ranking maths, before anyone asks.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What was the discontinuation rate?
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.
Do you have the publication or the press release?
Press-release posts get their own flair here. Nothing wrong with them, they are just a different kind of claim.
Absolute or relative risk reduction?
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable.
Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong efficacy number and heavy discontinuation is telling you two things and people only quote one.
Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
Which trial, and which arm?
Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
What did the confidence interval look like?
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteria. Reading a weight number out of one is reading a secondary endpoint.
FLOW was kidney outcomes and it is the one nobody quotes
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets
- 1Discontinuation rates are a tolerability result. A trial with a strong…9 comments in this branch · started by u/gastric_emptying_g