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 — 44 comments in the full submission. View in context.
716
c/trialwatch·submitted 9 months ago by u/blunt_coldbox_notes

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

Readoutbranch of 9 comments

the FLOW rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining. Nothing about this affects the ranking maths, before anyone asks. Started keeping the trial identifiers straight in a note file because I kept mixing up two programmes in the same sentence. Quoted a figure here confidently, got asked whether it was…

Read the full submission and all 44 comments →

This branch

9 comments, started 9 months ago
u/gastric_emptying_g21 points·9 months 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/eu_apotheke_a6 points·9 months ago·edited

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/nora_oyelaran3 points·9 months ago

Correction: SURMOUNT is the obesity programme and SURPASS is the diabetes one. The figure you quoted belongs to the other one.

replysharereportpermalink
u/receptor_bias_rick1 point·9 months ago

Which trial, and which arm?

replysharereportpermalink
u/nora_oyelaran1 point·9 months ago

Yes. The appendix tables are where the subgroup and the adverse event detail actually live.

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_vermeulen2 points·9 months ago

How long was the randomised phase before any extension?

replysharereportpermalink
u/hedda_adeyemi3 points·9 months ago

a mean is not a promise

replysharereportpermalink
u/blunt_coldbox_notesOP0 points·9 months ago

What did the confidence interval look like?

replysharereportpermalink
u/hedda_adeyemi0 points·9 months ago

Spent an evening with the appendix tables and found the subgroup detail that the entire thread had been speculating about.

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
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.
Moderators
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.