[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. This affects how posts get sorted and removed, so it belongs in the open.
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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.
Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.
Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
open-label extensions are not the same evidence as the randomised phase
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one.
Adding the check nobody runs — the registered protocol is public and takes two minutes to compare.