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. 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 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.
If two or three other people have done the same thing we might actually learn something. Alone it is an anecdote.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Added the trial identifier to the title so this thread is findable in two years.
trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets
trial populations get support that nobody on this board gets
Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.
Small fix — that was the cardiovascular outcomes trial, so weight was a secondary endpoint and the population was different.
STEP is semaglutide obesity, SURMOUNT is tirzepatide obesity, they are not interchangeable
Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.
That is a relative risk reduction. Quoting it without the absolute numbers overstates the case considerably.
[removed by moderator]
Disagree — that figure is from the diabetes programme and you are quoting it as an obesity endpoint.
the appendix is where the interesting tables live
Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different populations and designs is not a comparison.
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.
yusuf_ramos is right about the programme names. They are different populations with different endpoints.
What did the confidence interval look like?
SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight
Is that intention-to-treat or completers?
The press release said that; the publication says something more hedged. Worth reading both.
Push back: an open-label extension tells you about the people who stayed. That is a different question.
Same. A press release is a claim about a result; the publication is the result.
Relative risk reduction without the baseline rate is uninterpretable. A large relative reduction on a small absolute risk is a small absolute benefit.
Careful with that mean. The distribution around it was wide enough that it describes very few individual participants.
Do you have the publication or the press release?
read the endpoint before you read the headline
read the endpoint before you read the headline
This is the distinction that would end about half the arguments on this board.
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.
the confidence interval is the finding, the point estimate is the headline
SURPASS is the diabetes programme and reports glycaemic endpoints
- 1Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and…7 comments in this branch · started by u/cesar_ivaturi
- 2Not convinced. Cross-trial comparison between two programmes with different…7 comments in this branch · started by u/marit_laurent