someone explain FLOW to me like I have not read a paper in years
someone explain FLOW to me like I have not read a paper in years — that is what I am asking, and I have already read the wiki twice.
Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence.
Went looking for the registered protocol to see whether the endpoint had changed. It had not, which was reassuring and worth checking.
The discontinuation numbers were the most useful thing in the paper for me and they were in a supplementary table.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was ITT, went and checked, and it was not. Learned something.
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.
Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.
How long was the randomised phase before any extension?
STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable
Absolute or relative risk reduction?
Read a press release and the publication three months apart. The hedging in the second one was substantial.
Retitled: the original quoted a diabetes endpoint as an obesity result.
Which trial, and which arm?
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.
Argued for a week about a result and then read the limitations section, which conceded most of my opponent’s point.
read the endpoint before you read the headline
This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
a press release is not a publication
a press release is not a publication
careful_gradient_again is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
a mean is not a promise
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Compared myself to a trial mean for about six months before realising the trial arm had dietitian contact every fortnight.
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
registry entry, protocol, publication — three different documents
That is the 68-week readout, not the 72-week one. Different trial, different duration.
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.
intention to treat versus completers changes the number substantially
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.
Intention-to-treat analyses everybody randomised regardless of what they did afterwards.
Agreed. And the interval, not the point estimate, is what the trial actually established.
- 1This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the…11 comments in this branch · started by u/yusuf_achebe
- 2The registered protocol is public. Comparing the registered primary endpoint…6 comments in this branch · started by u/tomas_kimani