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 [Meta] the FLOW rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining — 49 comments in the full submission. View in context.
3k
c/trialwatch·submitted 1 year ago by u/piotr_bruun

[Meta] the FLOW rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining

Discussionbranch of 8 comments

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…

Read the full submission and all 49 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 1 year ago
u/ferran_dahlberg193 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/forest_plot_fionaMOD98 points·1 year ago

Left up and flaired Trial Data. The publication is linked rather than the coverage, which is what we ask for.

replysharereportpermalink
u/milos_trevino76 points·1 year ago

discontinuation rate is a result, not a footnote

replysharereportpermalink
u/pancreatitis_scare21 points·1 year ago

check who the comparator was before you compare anything

replysharereportpermalink
u/arne_ilunga7 points·1 year ago·edited

check who the comparator was before you compare anything

Disagreeing with this line: that is a relative reduction and the absolute numbers are considerably less dramatic.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yusuf_ramos117 points·1 year ago

This. Intention-to-treat versus completer analysis routinely moves the headline by several points.

replysharereportpermalink
u/piotr_bruunOP-16 points·1 year ago

What did the confidence interval look like?

replysharereportpermalink
u/nordic_pricing1 point·1 year ago

SELECT was cardiovascular outcomes, not weight

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

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.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 →