GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of someone explain FLOW to me like I have not read a paper in years — 51 comments in the full submission. View in context.
2k
c/trialwatch·submitted 6 months ago by u/nordic_pricing

someone explain FLOW to me like I have not read a paper in years

Discussionbranch of 7 comments

someone explain FLOW to me like I have not read a paper in years. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post. 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…

Read the full submission and all 51 comments →

This branch

7 comments, started 6 months ago
u/marit_laurent139 points·6 months ago

Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yusuf_ramos93 points·6 months ago

That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nordic_pricingOP68 points·6 months ago

That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one.

yusuf_ramos is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_karlsen41 points·6 months ago

What did the confidence interval look like?

replysharereportpermalink
u/naomi_ekstrom22 points·6 months ago

SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight

replysharereportpermalink
u/nordic_pricingOP25 points·6 months ago

Is that intention-to-treat or completers?

replysharereportpermalink
u/nora_oyelaran20 points·6 months ago

The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/trialwatch

Clinical trial reading group. New readouts, protocol amendments, endpoint definitions, dropout handling, and the difference between a press release and a publication. Absolute risk reduction and number-needed-to-treat are house dialect here.

34kmembers
95submissions
Nov 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
More in c/trialwatch
c/trialwatch rules
  1. Press-release-only posts must be flaired Press Release until a publication exists.
  2. Give the trial name, phase, n, and primary endpoint in the body.
  3. Relative risk reduction alone is not a result. Show the absolute numbers.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/trialwatch_theou/forest_plot_fionau/hazard_ratio_halu/renal_outcomes_r
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →